C FAQ wiki

[Giannis Papadopoulos]

Although Steve Summit's C FAQ is really good, are there any C FAQ wikis?

--
one's freedom stops where others' begin

Giannis Papadopoulos
http://dop.users.uth.gr/
University of Thessaly
Computer & Communications Engineering dept.

 

[Bob]

Although Steve Summit's C FAQ is really good, are there any
C FAQ wikis?

Not that I know of, but that's a great idea. The folks over
at comp.graphics.algorithms just inaugurated their FAQ wiki.
After years of stagnatation, their FAQ has become a living
document:

http://cgafaq.info/wiki/Main_Page

 

[Giannis Papadopoulos]

Not that I know of, but that's a great idea. The folks over
at comp.graphics.algorithms just inaugurated their FAQ wiki.
After years of stagnatation, their FAQ has become a living
document:

http://cgafaq.info/wiki/Main_Page

If there is not such a thing, is anyone interested in starting one?

Unfortunately, I am about to acquire my diploma - I have to present my
thesis this month, so if it happens, I was thinking after September.


--
one's freedom stops where others' begin

Giannis Papadopoulos
http://dop.users.uth.gr/
University of Thessaly
Computer & Communications Engineering dept.

 

[Richard Heathfield]

Although Steve Summit's C FAQ is really good, are there any C FAQ wikis?

The idea of a document that anyone can edit is very democratic, but
democracy has little to do with correctness.

A C FAQ wiki is likely to end up as yet another Web repository full of junk
waiting to be debunked by clc experts. Life's too short.

 

[Netocrat]

The idea of a document that anyone can edit is very democratic, but
democracy has little to do with correctness.

A C FAQ wiki is likely to end up as yet another Web repository full of junk
waiting to be debunked by clc experts. Life's too short.

How about if the wiki:
* were invitation-only and maintained by clc experts
* were initialised with the content of the current FAQ
* emailed individual or batch updates to its invited maintainer list
(to ensure that inaccuracies could be corrected in short order)?

I support the idea of a wiki because many threads contain new and
useful information that isn't in the current FAQ. Whilst this information
may not qualify as a FAQ, it would be better archived in a structured
format rather than newsgroup postings, particularly because many threads
also contain inaccuracies, noise and corrections, and the final correct
information may be hidden or scattered about the thread. I've considered
doing this myself but don't have the time to format the information and
as an individual I'm likely to commit errors myself. A group effort, on
the other hand, could achieve this. In other words I'm suggesting that a
wiki could supplement and summarise the proceedings of the newsgroup.
It's not without problems, but this group's experts are problem solvers
and they aren't insurmountable problems.

 

[Richard Heathfield]

How about if the wiki:
* were invitation-only and maintained by clc experts
* were initialised with the content of the current FAQ
* emailed individual or batch updates to its invited maintainer list
(to ensure that inaccuracies could be corrected in short order)?

Yes, that could work.

 

[Richard Bos]

Yes, that could work.

Yes? Who decides who is invited? You? Me? Dan Pop? Paul Hsieh? Xah Lee?

The current FAQ is (c) Steve Summit, btw.

Richard

 

[Richard Heathfield]

Yes? Who decides who is invited? You? Me? Dan Pop? Paul Hsieh? Xah Lee?

Chris Torek, obviously. Duh.

The current FAQ is (c) Steve Summit, btw.

Oops. So it is. Perhaps we should get our own FAQ for this newsgroup,
instead of relying on someone else's all the time.

 

[Richard Bos]

Chris Torek, obviously. Duh.


Oops. So it is. Perhaps we should get our own FAQ for this newsgroup,
instead of relying on someone else's all the time.

To be honest, I'm not altogether happy with the current situation, in
which something called The c.l.c Newsgroup FAQ is sold for money, and
not posted in this newsgroup in its entirety. Then again, I shouldn't
complain, since I don't see myself getting off my arse and doing
something about it.

Richard

 

[Richard Heathfield]

<g> You have a point, but would he?

I don't know. We could always ask him, and find out that way.

To be honest, I'm not altogether happy with the current situation, in
which something called The c.l.c Newsgroup FAQ is sold for money, and
not posted in this newsgroup in its entirety.

Especially since it doesn't reflect best practice, containing as it does a
number of anachronisms. Many a time I've wanted to fix some of those, but
couldn't because the C FAQ isn't mine to tamper with.

Then again, I shouldn't
complain, since I don't see myself getting off my arse and doing
something about it.

Maybe we could sort out some kind of mirror for you?

 

[Netocrat]

I don't know. We could always ask him, and find out that way.

The "benevolent dictator" approach works for other projects; Chris seems
to meet the job description well. Alternatively - or in addition - new
members could be invited through vote of existing members. Details would
need to be considered further (e.g. How are the initial members selected?
How do the non-votes of inactive members affect the result? Can the
dictator override the democracy?).

Especially since it doesn't reflect best practice, containing as it does
a number of anachronisms. Many a time I've wanted to fix some of those,
but couldn't because the C FAQ isn't mine to tamper with.


Maybe we could sort out some kind of mirror for you?

I only thought about the copyright after posting. Perhaps Steve would be
amenable to use of the FAQ material as the initialisation of an official
c.l.c. wiki under terms agreeable to all. If not, the wiki could start
out empty, with additions made based on the currently topical threads.

 

[Anonymous 7843]

I only thought about the copyright after posting. Perhaps Steve would be
amenable to use of the FAQ material as the initialisation of an official
c.l.c. wiki under terms agreeable to all. If not, the wiki could start
out empty, with additions made based on the currently topical threads.

The existing questions could be paraphrased and answered anew.
In some sense Steve does not have a copyright on the questions
since they were originally posted in comp.lang.c by not-Steve.

 

[Ben Pfaff]

(e-mail address removed) (Anonymous 7843) writes:

[about the FAQ]

In some sense Steve does not have a copyright on the questions
since they were originally posted in comp.lang.c by not-Steve.

He arguably has a compilation copyright on them.

 

[Alan Balmer]

(e-mail address removed) (Anonymous 7843) writes:

[about the FAQ]

In some sense Steve does not have a copyright on the questions
since they were originally posted in comp.lang.c by not-Steve.

He arguably has a compilation copyright on them.

The questions are an important, but minor part of the text. Perhaps
"Anonymous" doesn't realize that the FAQ is composed of answers as
well as questions.

 

[Anonymous 7843]

(e-mail address removed) (Anonymous 7843) writes:

[about the FAQ]

In some sense Steve does not have a copyright on the questions
since they were originally posted in comp.lang.c by not-Steve.

He arguably has a compilation copyright on them.

The questions are an important, but minor part of the text. Perhaps
"Anonymous" doesn't realize that the FAQ is composed of answers as
well as questions.

If you would be so kind as to re-read my actual message (and not just
the unsnipped parts that were relevant to Mr. Pfaff's message) you will
find that I did indeed mention the fact that answers would need to be
formulated anew.

Your use of sarcistic items such the word "perhaps" and the scare
quotes around my chosen handle are not helpful and are bording
on ad hominem attacks. Surely you can do better, and I mean
that in the sense of not attacking at all, not in the sense of
attacking better.

 

[Anonymous 7843]

(e-mail address removed) (Anonymous 7843) writes:

[about the FAQ]

In some sense Steve does not have a copyright on the questions
since they were originally posted in comp.lang.c by not-Steve.

He arguably has a compilation copyright on them.

IANAL, but I believe my suggustion of paraphrasing the questions
would take care of that.

It may be unseemly, but we should probably prod Steve Summit
into asking his publisher for a ruling on this. It's probably
less about what's legally actionable in the abstract than
how protective the publisher intends to be about it.

 

[Mark]

(e-mail address removed) (Anonymous 7843) writes:

[about the FAQ]

In some sense Steve does not have a copyright on the questions
since they were originally posted in comp.lang.c by not-Steve.

He arguably has a compilation copyright on them.

IANAL, but I believe my suggustion of paraphrasing the questions
would take care of that.

It may be unseemly, but we should probably prod Steve Summit
into asking his publisher for a ruling on this. It's probably
less about what's legally actionable in the abstract than
how protective the publisher intends to be about it.

Personally, I think a few of you have too much time on your hands.
That being said, why not just start compiling your own list of questions
starting today? Within a few weeks you'll have many of the questions
already answered in the faq (as most newcomers don't read it and ask
the same questions over and over and over...) and a few more for good
measure!

Mark

 

[Ben Pfaff]

That being said, why not just start compiling your own list of questions
starting today?

For what it's worth, I have a few supplemental FAQs and answers
on my webpage:
http://benpfaff.org/writings/clc

 

[Netocrat]

Some of us do, as evidenced by Ben Pfaff's post below. I keep and distill
some of the more informative posts. But a wiki controlled by acknowledged
(however that's defined) c.l.c experts would avoid duplication of effort
and provide a better guarantee of authoritative answers.

 

[Eric Sosman]

For what it's worth, I have a few supplemental FAQs and answers
on my webpage:
http://benpfaff.org/writings/clc

No project to update/supplement/improve/replace the FAQ
can afford to ignore Peter Seebach's work:

http://www.plethora.net/~seebs/faqs/c-iaq.html