[pydotorg-www] Fwd: A little mistake, Agustin

[Michael Foord]

On 18/12/2010 16:15, anatoly techtonik wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 18, 2010 at 1:52 PM, Steve Holden<steve at holdenweb.com>  wrote:
>> On 12/18/2010 4:32 AM, anatoly techtonik wrote:
>>> The best course of action is to allow site edits by users.
>> That's an opinion, but not the only one. Have you seen the PHP
>> documentation with user comments? The comments render the documentation
>> less useful in some cases.
> Comments were extremely useful some years ago, as they had a lot of
> actual examples, which greatly saved time. When I was working on
> Extended CHM version of PHP manual
> https://students.kiv.zcu.cz/doc/php5/docs-echm.php.html user comments
> were one of its major features.

We will soon have online comments for the Python documentation itself 
and much of our site is in the form of a wiki that is user editable. 
(Thank you Georg.)

Much of the rest of the site (front page, essays and so on) it 
absolutely doesn't make sense to have user editable.

All the best,

Michael Foord

> > From my learning experience user feedback in comments was more useful
> than outdated documentation. The feedback that Python still lacks. I
> tried to start Python several times, but until I found Python
> Cookbook, I couldn't understand a whole world of concepts behind the
> language. Maybe that's the goal - filter people, until they are
> proficient enough to understand the language?
>
> There was no cookbook for PHP - all recipes for most common problems
> were in comments. Right now the system may be outdated. Comments are
> moderated, but even long ago there were so many requests that nobody
> really had time to review and approve them all. The comment system
> could evolve to allow users report outdated info and rate comments,
> but those who became capable to enhance the system grow out of PHP.
> People switched to Experts Exchange and now there is StackOverflow.
>
> My opinion is that documentation should be edited online, and right
> now it is possible to make at least documentation edits more
> accessible. My ticket for "suggest a change" link is waiting somewhere
> on bug tracker. Idea is there, moderation queue algorithm is there,
> patch system is ready, even rendering is partially there. But nobody
> wants to see the system as a whole, so proposals like "immediate doc
> build system" are closed. I must say that there is no framework for
> collaboration. People are concentrated on specific bugs and work
> alone, but complex issues require coordination, and nobody seem
> interested in that.
>
> Not interested, because there are many open questions, before you
> start contributing, and if people can't find the answers, and don't
> have time for discussions, they are unlikely to be involved. For
> example, let's take the main questions for most open source projects -
> licensing of this collaborative work. Why should I participate? What
> do I get in exchange? Can I reuse that I've done? After the last time
> I tried to discuss it, my patches stopped to be accepted, so I don't
> write them anymore. For all open source projects it is clear that if
> project is MIT licensed your patch will also be MIT licensed, isn't
> it?
>
> Some time ago I opened a project on http://code.google.com/p/pydotorg/
> to draft a collaboration platform I'd like to see for pydotorg. It is
> not ideal, but sets some standards that python.org fails. I hope it
> clearly communicates the ideas of reuse and cross-project
> collaboration. If only smb. else was interested in these.. But at
> least people are free to add and star proposals.
>
> --
> anatoly t.
> _______________________________________________
> pydotorg-www mailing list
> pydotorg-www at python.org
> http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/pydotorg-www


-- 

http://www.voidspace.org.uk/

May you do good and not evil
May you find forgiveness for yourself and forgive others
May you share freely, never taking more than you give.
-- the sqlite blessing http://www.sqlite.org/different.html