On Mon, 05 Dec 2011 16:44:05 -0600 Bryan Alsdorf <bryan@askmonty.org> wrote: Bryan> Hi all, Hello! Forgot to reply to this. Bryan> On 11/30/2011 12:32 PM, Shaun McCance wrote: Shaun> On Tue, 2011-11-29 at 09:54 -0500, Daniel Bartholomew wrote: Daniel> On Mon, 28 Nov 2011 16:14:34 -0500 Daniel> Shaun McCance<shaunm@gnome.org> wrote: Shaun> Hi all, Shaun> Shaun> What are your thoughts on adding stub Shaun> articles/sections to the KB? For example, adding an Shaun> article for how to specify account names without Shaun> actually writing the content, along with a note to Shaun> whoever comes along about what the article should Shaun> contain. Shaun> Shaun> I've seen stubs work well in other docs efforts. Shaun> They're an easy way for contributors to cherry pick Shaun> work. But with the "everything is always published" Shaun> model of a wiki-like KB, stubs can be annoying to Shaun> average readers, like a 90s-esque "under construction" Shaun> banner. Shaun> Shaun> Thoughts? Daniel> I'm fine with the idea of stubs, as long as they don't get Daniel> lost or forgotten about. They are a good way to encourage Daniel> participation and plot a course for what to add to the KB Daniel> next. Bryan> I like the thought of stubs helping people to participate but as Bryan> many others have said, I'm very worried about it a) cluttering Bryan> up the KB and b) not actually helping. Bryan> Bryan> A first step could just be a "Requested Articles" page, and add Bryan> a link to a "Want to contribute?" in the sidebar and at the Bryan> bottom of article listings. I think the list of tasks on http://kb.askmonty.org/en/contributing-to-the-askmonty-knowledgebase#tasks ...is a good start for a "Requested Articles" page. I'm fine with a dedicated page if others like the idea. Peppering "Want to contribute?" links around the site is a good idea and they should link to the above "Contributing to the AskMonty Knowledgebase" article. Daniel> To keep track of them, we could add a checkbox to the edit Daniel> page to mark whether or not a page is considered a stub, and Daniel> then have a special page that lists all stubs. Shaun> Instead of a boolean flag for stubs, how about an enum field Shaun> for status? Stubs would be one status. This could help you Shaun> keep track of which pages you've thoroughly reviewed, for Shaun> example. Bryan> If we do add stubs, nstead of adding another option to the Bryan> status field or a dedicated check box, I propose going forward Bryan> with adding tags to the KB. The multiple parents was seen by Bryan> some as a replacement for tags, but I think they can complement Bryan> each other and as an alternative way to find what you are Bryan> looking for. Bryan> Bryan> Thoughts? I know we've talked about tagging articles as being relevant for specific releases, so am I correct in thinking in that instance the tag would be something like "MariaDB 5.2.10" for something that only applies to MariaDB 5.2.10 or "MariaDB 5.2" (if it applies to any 5.2 release)? (just trying to make sure I'm remembering our previous discussions correctly) For things like stub articles, would we just adopt a convention of adding a "stub" tag to articles which are stubs? I guess I'm just wondering about the mechanics of how the tags would work in practice. For example, would there be a pre-defined list that people can choose from or will the tags be more free-form? Free form would be much easier, I'm guessing, from an admin point of view, but we would need to agree on a set of conventions (and maybe write them down somewhere) so we don't end up with lots of very similar-but-not-quite-the-same tags. And we should probably have a "tag review" tool that easily lets us combine similar tags together. Bryan> P.S. I'm now back in town so I actually will be able to Bryan> participate in this discussion instead of only reading from my Bryan> phone. Welcome back! I hope your vacation was fun! -- Daniel Bartholomew MariaDB - http://mariadb.org Monty Program - http://montyprogram.com AskMonty Knowledgebase - http://kb.askmonty.org