On Tue, 2011-11-29 at 09:54 -0500, Daniel Bartholomew wrote:
On Mon, 28 Nov 2011 16:14:34 -0500 Shaun McCance <shaunm@gnome.org> wrote:
Shaun> Hi all, Shaun> Shaun> What are your thoughts on adding stub articles/sections to the Shaun> KB? For example, adding an article for how to specify account Shaun> names without actually writing the content, along with a note to Shaun> whoever comes along about what the article should contain. Shaun> Shaun> I've seen stubs work well in other docs efforts. They're an easy Shaun> way for contributors to cherry pick work. But with the Shaun> "everything is always published" model of a wiki-like KB, stubs Shaun> can be annoying to average readers, like a 90s-esque "under Shaun> construction" banner. Shaun> Shaun> Thoughts?
I'm fine with the idea of stubs, as long as they don't get lost or forgotten about. They are a good way to encourage participation and plot a course for what to add to the KB next.
To keep track of them, we could add a checkbox to the edit page to mark whether or not a page is considered a stub, and then have a special page that lists all stubs.
Instead of a boolean flag for stubs, how about an enum field for status? Stubs would be one status. This could help you keep track of which pages you've thoroughly reviewed, for example. -- Shaun