Suggestion: allow multiple updaters of the C FAQ

[James Harris]

Given the recent discussions over the C FAQ has it been discussed
whether it's worth storing it in a form that multiple people can
update it? Could you open it to public updates? I guess not but maybe
a few updaters could be chosen by consensus.

Options:

- a wiki (public updates or updates only to known userids)
- a Google site (not tried but AIUI can be limited to userids)
- anything similar

As an example the FAQ for another Usenet group, alt.os.development,
was placed on a wiki. You can see it at the first of the following
links.

http://aodfaq.wikispaces.com/
http://codewiki.wikispaces.com/faq

The second link (from a different wiki but with the same provider)
deals with some of the potential concerns of the wiki mechanism:
security, protection against vandalism, backups, notification of
updates and requiring one or more people to have overall control such
as the current editor, Steve(?).

Wikispaces is the only one I've tried that I can recommend but there
are other options. I mention it principally because it addresses some
of the concerns I expect people may have.

Lessons learned from aodfaq.wikispaces.com? At some point we'll
probably split it to smaller sections rather than use a single page.
Othter than that it has been a good solution. Periodic reminders are
posted to the newsgroup but all they do is point to the wiki.

What about the C FAQ? Could anything similar bring benefits?

James

 

[santosh]

Given the recent discussions over the C FAQ has it been discussed
whether it's worth storing it in a form that multiple people can
update it? Could you open it to public updates? [ ... ]

I may be completely wrong about this, but I vaguely recollect Mr.
Summit mentioning a couple of years ago that he was not in a position
to update his FAQ because of certain copyright rules involved with a
published book derived from the FAQs.

<snip good points>

 

[Andrew Poelstra]

Given the recent discussions over the C FAQ has it been discussed
whether it's worth storing it in a form that multiple people can
update it? Could you open it to public updates? I guess not but maybe
a few updaters could be chosen by consensus.

There is a wiki at:
http://clc-wiki.net/wiki/Main_Page

But nobody really used it.

 

[James Harris]

There is a wiki at:
 http://clc-wiki.net/wiki/Main_Page

But nobody really used it.

The clc wiki seems to be a skeleton waiting for content. I've seen
other efforts like that which have come to nothing. Understandably,
ISTM, people generally lack the motivation to fill-in-the-gaps in
someone else's work.

Similarly, before we set up the aod faq, some of the concerns were
around many updaters leading to corruption of the text: vandalism,
disputes etc but in practice rather than being gung-ho people have
been generally reticent to make updates. I'm not sure why the
reticence to make changes but from the stats the site is well used -
i.e. well read.

In contrast with the above situation (with the clc-wiki) the C faq is
already fully written. Placing it on its own wiki or group-updatable
site would not require editors to fill in gaps. The content would
already be complete. But it would allow corrections and minor updates
as needed while still allowing Steve to exercise overall control and
update it as he saw fit. This is similar to how the aod faq has been
updated. Although not many a few people have gone in and made minor
adjustments: fixing URLs, adding missing links (er, the non-biological
kind, that is ) etc. and some new sections/questions.

It should be noted that the aod faq was a collaborative effort by
those on the group before it went on a wiki so they naturally had few
changes to make.

I should say that there was an attempt to corrupt the codewiki site,
the second of these two wikis. Someone was quite determined to rewrite
some of it in what appeared to be Croatian. But with a bit of
communication and backing out of his changes (organisers, at least,
can revert to previously good copies) order was restored.

Few replies. I can think of a number of potential reasons (I won't
bore you with them but they are generally positive). At least if
someone later shouts about updates to the C faq he had his chance.

James