Craig Ringer wrote: >On Fri, 2005-02-04 at 07:52 +0100, Jan Ulrich Hasecke wrote: > > >>Craig Ringer wrote: >> >> >>>Others have answered the "What" part of your question, but not really >>>the "why". >>> >>> >>If other people wnat to contribute to the documentation, it would be >>good to move the docs over into the wiki. As said the wiki is for >>collaboration. If you and me add some little trick a forum-like cms >>would do the job. >> >> > >Personally, I'd view the wiki as a good place to refine new >documentation sections, but some one-person editorial by Peter before >inclusion in a separate section of definitive finished documentation >seems to me like a good idea. > > > I'm glad I started this thread, because I not only got the answer to my question, but saw a lot of other stuff discussed I didn't even know about. With the sense that I now have about the wiki, it would seem to me that the following kinds of things could be done with the wiki that "need" to be done (or have needed to be done in the past):
1. As Scribus has advanced in the past, there has been at times a lag in the official documentation, and actually a lack of correct official documentation at times. The wiki could be a repository for at least fragments of useful information on new features not yet officially documented. And by the way, I endorse the idea of keeping the official Scribus documentation just where it is; there is no reason the official docs and the wiki cannot complement each other, maybe even compliment each other. (I refuse to put a smiley in here) 2. There is a wealth of information in the scribus at nashi.altmuehlnet.de archives, as well as some very interesting discussions on a wide range of DTP-related topics. The wiki could give someone (or lots of someones) a chance to scan the archive and give a collected summary of a given discussion, along with appropriate links to the more interesting individual mailings. Anyone who scans the Fedora list, for example, realizes that there is such a repetitive nature to many of the questions and many of the problems, because people don't spend much time scanning the archives, and who can blame them? It's a lot of work. 3. As someone trying to learn Python, I can say that generally speaking, the information out there to learn Python from the bottom up is not easy. There's a 'Catch-22' sort of a problem: if you know Python already, you can easily get help. But getting help with learning Python up to that point is very difficult. I bought two books, Learning Python, and Python Cookbook. Having read Learning Perl I was expecting more -- it's very helpful, and entertaining. Learning Python is a very dry text and what passes for humor, well, it doesn't pass. I find Perl Cookbook an excellent resource, but wish I hadn't bought Python Cookbook; just not very helpful. So getting back to what I started with, the wiki could be of big help to someone trying to modify a script or write a new one. Just showing some generic and complete examples (useful ones, not just the obtuse fragments which abound in Python documentation) would be of great value. Conceptually, I find Python a very interesting language, but it has become quite complex -- it makes learning regexp's look easy. Greg
