Gorjanc Gregor wrote: > OK, I agree here. > > But, should we, beside pointing to help(factor), cross-reference all > guides and tips on the same topic? > > Gregor
Sure! And also, you are free to contact Vincent Zoonekynd and propose to rework respective pages to make them more complementary, if you like. Best, Philippe Grosjean > -----Original Message----- > From: Martin Maechler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Mon 2006-08-07 10:08 > To: Gorjanc Gregor > Cc: Philippe Grosjean; Ben Bolker; [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: [R-wiki] Factor pages > > >>>>>>"Gorjanc" == Gorjanc Gregor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>>>>> on Mon, 7 Aug 2006 08:41:19 +0200 writes: > > > Gorjanc> Hi, > >> No. Vincent Zoonekynd's Statistics with R is a separate guide by > itself > >> (and I hope to have more documents like this, translated into the > Wiki). > >> Apart from its translation into Wiki format (and perhaps, refreshment > of > >> the content to work with latest R version), this is not to be > >> edited/merged with the rest. > >> > >> The tips section starts with Paul Johnson's tips, but is dedicated to > be > >> a collection of many more tips, contributed by the Wiki users. > >> > >> Guides and Tips are very different sections. However, it is possible > to > >> got some redundancy... a little bit like you have certainly redundancy > >> in the various contributed packages and documents on CRAN, but you > >> cannot force their authors for more coherence. > > Gorjanc> I agree that guides and tips are different, but it > Gorjanc> would be great to go for one definite guide and > Gorjanc> link tips to it? I just do not see the benefit of > Gorjanc> having a multiple of a bit different > Gorjanc> guides. Imagine several pages on the same topic in > Gorjanc> wikipedia. The same applies with CRAN, but I think > Gorjanc> that we should try to have one general > Gorjanc> tool/guide/tip for one task/issue, ... or am I > Gorjanc> wrong? > > I think you are partly right and partly wrong. > You are right the "reference" or "definition" information should > be in one place only if possible --- within a given "set", see > wikipedia. > In our context note that I think the "definition" / "reference" > is typically the help pages (from the latest version of R) --- > and fortunately Philippe has made the incorporation of these > into the Wiki a big priority for the Wiki > [[though there's still the bug that not all help page hyper > links work as they should ]]. > > > However there are many books covering the same topic, even many > encyclopedia. Typically these books are for different > audiences; if they are very thorough books they all refer to the > original "definition". > Hence, in our case, all "good" R-Wiki articles on 'factor' > should link to the R-Wiki-version of help(factor) . > > In our case here, such guides are ``books for different > audiences''; and BTW even tips *can* (and should if I remember > Philippe's original intentions with the Wiki correctly) be aimed > at different audiences. > So there's definitely room for different guides explaining > 'factor's in R -- and to reiterate the point -- if they should > be improved, they should point the wikified help(factor) page. > > Martin > > > > > _______________________________________________ R-sig-wiki mailing list [email protected] https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-sig-wiki
