On Wed, 2011-11-30 at 13:32 -0500, Shaun McCance wrote:
On Tue, 2011-11-29 at 09:54 -0500, Daniel Bartholomew wrote:
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.
(Just throwing ideas in the ring. Take them or leave them.) Another option would be to have a stub macro, like this: <<stub>> This article is a stub. [[contribute|Help us write it.]] <</stub>> I don't know the internals of the KB. If it parses pages when they're saved, it could store a stub count per-page, and generate a report of all pages with a stub count > 0. Pros: * It encourages people to write a blurb telling users the page is a stub, and what they can do to help. * It can be used to stub sections in a page, which I think is useful sometimes. Just do this: == SSL Options <<stub>> This section is a stub. [[contribute|Help us write it.]] <</stub>> This would be picked up by a save-time stub counter as well. -- Shaun