Re: FYI: Wiki posting
Hagar Delest wrote: There is a clear intent to sanitize one of the bad aspects of Base and this is not acceptable I can't examine history of those wiki pages due to the wiki problems already mentioned today. I agree about the fact that a newcomer should not rewrite and remove content still maintained and build in years. I totally don't agree with the "conspiracy theory" tones. Really. We are here to solve bugs, not to hide them. Restore the wiki page so that it has the content most useful to users, write a note to this "Eschmenk" guy in the talk page, and solve this without using too much imagination... I've written a similar post in the forum thread. Regards, Andrea. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: FYI: Wiki posting
On Tue, Sep 3, 2013 at 4:16 PM, Rory O'Farrell wrote: > On Tue, 3 Sep 2013 16:03:51 -0400 > Rob Weir wrote: > >> On Tue, Sep 3, 2013 at 3:57 PM, Hagar Delest >> wrote: >> > Le 03/09/2013 20:51, Rob Weir a écrit : >> > >> >> Maybe one approach is to split this into two pages, one with the >> >> simpler core content, and a linked page that has all of the tutorial >> >> links? >> > >> > >> > What do you mean? Keep the not that nice comments on Base hidden on a >> > second >> > ranking page and keep the good looking comments on the first one? Knowing >> > that most users would not check the 2nd page? >> >> I'm not offering an opinion on how to structure the content. I'm >> merely pointing out that we do not have a scarcity of pages on the >> wiki. It should be possible for any reasonable content to be added >> and for editors not to step on each others toes. >> >> > Note that some comment are even completely wrong it seems (see Villeroy's >> > comment in the forum). >> > >> > There is a clear intent to sanitize one of the bad aspects of Base and this >> > is not acceptable. Remember that users can use AOO for production work, >> > especially for a database component. Hiding such risks is not professional >> > at all and may lead to real frustration, especially if users discover >> > afterward this operation. It's even a real shame (that's why I don't trust >> > very much wikis, but that's my own opinion). >> > >> > I think we are facing a limit of the contribution through wikis. We can't >> > do >> > very much against this. But it will discourage power user from contributing >> > to the wiki. >> > >> >> I'm sure whatever you say on the forum will have great influence due >> to the respect you have there. I hope you can find a way to lead the >> parties to a constructive resolution to this disagreement. >> >> Regards, >> >> -Rob >> >> >> > Hagar >> > > > What worries me is the removal of links to the Forum. I see no problem with > hosting the removed content on the Forum; however the removal of any contrary > opinion to Eschmenk's would lead me to fear that any further Forum links on > the Wiki might be removed. > Worry, fear, zealots, etc., I hear a lot of strong words here, but has anyone actually tried to contact the other wiki editor? Failure to communicate is the cause of 90% of the problems out there. I'm disinclined to recommend any further actions until someone suitably motivated takes at least that first simple, civil step. Remember, we're talking about a Wiki account that was first used on August 29th, and where only 3 edits to a single page have been made. To call this zealotry and to bemoan the lingering motivation of power users is an overreaction, in my opinion. Editing disagreements on wikis are nothing new.And we don't want to demotivate new contributors either. Personally, I'd assume this is a new user and maybe confused and invite them to discuss this page further on the mailing list or forum. If the person is truly the devil incarnate, that will be plain enough in due time and we can take additional steps. Regards, -Rob > > -- > Rory O'Farrell > > - > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org > - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: FYI: Wiki posting
On Tue, Sep 3, 2013 at 3:57 PM, Hagar Delest wrote: > Le 03/09/2013 20:51, Rob Weir a écrit : > >> Maybe one approach is to split this into two pages, one with the >> simpler core content, and a linked page that has all of the tutorial >> links? > > > What do you mean? Keep the not that nice comments on Base hidden on a second > ranking page and keep the good looking comments on the first one? Knowing > that most users would not check the 2nd page? I'm not offering an opinion on how to structure the content. I'm merely pointing out that we do not have a scarcity of pages on the wiki. It should be possible for any reasonable content to be added and for editors not to step on each others toes. > Note that some comment are even completely wrong it seems (see Villeroy's > comment in the forum). > > There is a clear intent to sanitize one of the bad aspects of Base and this > is not acceptable. Remember that users can use AOO for production work, > especially for a database component. Hiding such risks is not professional > at all and may lead to real frustration, especially if users discover > afterward this operation. It's even a real shame (that's why I don't trust > very much wikis, but that's my own opinion). > > I think we are facing a limit of the contribution through wikis. We can't do > very much against this. But it will discourage power user from contributing > to the wiki. > I'm sure whatever you say on the forum will have great influence due to the respect you have there. I hope you can find a way to lead the parties to a constructive resolution to this disagreement. Regards, -Rob > Hagar > > > - > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org > - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: FYI: Wiki posting
On Tue, 3 Sep 2013 16:03:51 -0400 Rob Weir wrote: > On Tue, Sep 3, 2013 at 3:57 PM, Hagar Delest wrote: > > Le 03/09/2013 20:51, Rob Weir a écrit : > > > >> Maybe one approach is to split this into two pages, one with the > >> simpler core content, and a linked page that has all of the tutorial > >> links? > > > > > > What do you mean? Keep the not that nice comments on Base hidden on a second > > ranking page and keep the good looking comments on the first one? Knowing > > that most users would not check the 2nd page? > > I'm not offering an opinion on how to structure the content. I'm > merely pointing out that we do not have a scarcity of pages on the > wiki. It should be possible for any reasonable content to be added > and for editors not to step on each others toes. > > > Note that some comment are even completely wrong it seems (see Villeroy's > > comment in the forum). > > > > There is a clear intent to sanitize one of the bad aspects of Base and this > > is not acceptable. Remember that users can use AOO for production work, > > especially for a database component. Hiding such risks is not professional > > at all and may lead to real frustration, especially if users discover > > afterward this operation. It's even a real shame (that's why I don't trust > > very much wikis, but that's my own opinion). > > > > I think we are facing a limit of the contribution through wikis. We can't do > > very much against this. But it will discourage power user from contributing > > to the wiki. > > > > I'm sure whatever you say on the forum will have great influence due > to the respect you have there. I hope you can find a way to lead the > parties to a constructive resolution to this disagreement. > > Regards, > > -Rob > > > > Hagar > > What worries me is the removal of links to the Forum. I see no problem with hosting the removed content on the Forum; however the removal of any contrary opinion to Eschmenk's would lead me to fear that any further Forum links on the Wiki might be removed. -- Rory O'Farrell - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: FYI: Wiki posting
Le 03/09/2013 22:03, Rob Weir a écrit : I'm sure whatever you say on the forum will have great influence due to the respect you have there. I hope you can find a way to lead the parties to a constructive resolution to this disagreement. This is the real problem. I doubt that Eschmenk (the author of the changes) is willing to even discuss the changes. We don't need such zealots, it will backfire, for sure. So either there is a reaction from the community (I recall Wikipedia implementing additional controls or locks after hot topics problems), or there is no reaction, equivalent to an unsaid agreement to what was done. It may be exagerated but there is some credibility at stake. Hagar - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: FYI: Wiki posting
Le 03/09/2013 20:51, Rob Weir a écrit : Maybe one approach is to split this into two pages, one with the simpler core content, and a linked page that has all of the tutorial links? What do you mean? Keep the not that nice comments on Base hidden on a second ranking page and keep the good looking comments on the first one? Knowing that most users would not check the 2nd page? Note that some comment are even completely wrong it seems (see Villeroy's comment in the forum). There is a clear intent to sanitize one of the bad aspects of Base and this is not acceptable. Remember that users can use AOO for production work, especially for a database component. Hiding such risks is not professional at all and may lead to real frustration, especially if users discover afterward this operation. It's even a real shame (that's why I don't trust very much wikis, but that's my own opinion). I think we are facing a limit of the contribution through wikis. We can't do very much against this. But it will discourage power user from contributing to the wiki. Hagar - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: FYI: Wiki posting
Sounds like an editing disagreement wrapped in a conspiracy theory. As far as I know there is no conspiracy here. If there was I'd surely know about it ;-) Who is Eschmenk? Does he or she know about DACM? Have they actually discussed the issue? If not they should probably start a discussion on the "Talk" page that is associated with that wiki page. Maybe they can come to a consensus there. Maybe one approach is to split this into two pages, one with the simpler core content, and a linked page that has all of the tutorial links? -Rob On Tue, Sep 3, 2013 at 2:35 PM, Rory O'Farrell wrote: > The posting quoted in extenso below was made today to the en-Forum. I have no > knowledge of Base or of the protocols of Wiki but I am anxious, as I am sure > are all working on OpenOffice, that users have as good an experience with it > as possible. This includes best advice. As I say, I have no knowledge of the > workings of Base, but I have seen the level and quality of advice offered by > DACM and other Forum volunteers who specialise in that area, so my instinct > would be to accept his considered opinion (and hence his Wiki postings) as > best advice. I am not certain how ths matter might be best progressed, so I > thought it best to lay before the dev ML. > > The full Forum thread is at > http://forum.openoffice.org/en/forum/viewtopic.php?f=49&t=63999 > At present the subsequent postings are for information relevant to the below > posting. I have inserted a few breaks to avoid gripes about long lines from > my mailer. > > The posting is: > -- > Subject: A Base issue cover-up? > Poster: DACM (Forum volunteer) > > I consider it a distinct privilege to participate in this and other community > forums, predominately in support of Base. The moderators have endured my > sometimes outspoken critique of Base in the process of urging Base users to > adopt a reliable database configuration for production data. I simply joined > the > [url=http://forum.openoffice.org/en/forum/viewtopic.php?f=83&t=17567]campaign > of [b]r4zoli[/b][/url], [b]Sliderule[/b], [b]Villeroy[/b] and many others as > we've sought to maintain a proper balance between transparency and > Base/Office promotion -- as avid users ourselves. > > As a result, any 'seasoned' Base user is now keenly-aware of the Base > instabilities associated with storing database-files internally, within the > Base .odb file, otherwise known as 'embedded database' files. We continue to > encounter newer/un-aware users that have fallen victim, and find themselves > desperately begging for help with critical data recovery. For instance, > [url=http://forum.openoffice.org/en/forum/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=63986]here's > today's entry[/url]. > > Our support includes data-recovery, automated backups, configuration > tutorials, data-migration tutorials, > [url=http://forum.openoffice.org/en/forum/viewtopic.php?f=83&t=61183]automated > templates[/url], examples, personalized user-help, etc. To that end, I've > painstakingly generated detailed tutorials outlining each of these solutions > (up through concurrent database access among multiple users in networked > environments) to the official[color=#FF] > [url=http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/FAQ_(Base)#HSQLDB]Apache OpenOffice.org > Wiki[/url][/color]. > > I understand the nature of a Wiki (and the ability to 'undo' changes), but > apparently those tutorials were removed recently by [b]Eschmenk[/b] citing > "[i][url=http://wiki.openoffice.org/w/index.php?title=FAQ_(Base)&action=history]Major > rewrite of some confusing sections.[/url][/i]" Now I can appreciate any > effort to clarify while condensing my prose, but this effort substantially > eliminated the tutorials and all links to this forum (leaving all others > intact), while further sanitizing the content of any reference to > data-corruption or known Base instabilities/workarounds/wizards/etc. > > In other words, [b]Eschmenk[/b] intentionally gutted the content and all > references to easy/automated solutions, while effectively eliminating all > motivation to avoid 'embedded database' files. What's left is a confusing and > suspicious fraction of the original tutorials and information. > > This is troubling because we can no longer presume that new and inexperienced > Base users have encountered data-corruption due to a lack of exposure to > information channels. [color=#FF]If [b]Eschmenk[/b] represents an > insider, then we we will soon be encountering victims who have lost data due > to a lack of motivation/awareness, due to the sanitized nature of the > propaganda allowed through official channels.[/color] > > Thankfully, we enjoy much greater transparency in this forum which serves to > overcome the intentional misrepresentation of the facts by insiders. But it > still hurts to realize that we have such [apparent and blatant] dishonesty in > the form of a cover-up extant in the open-source community. :(
FYI: Wiki posting
The posting quoted in extenso below was made today to the en-Forum. I have no knowledge of Base or of the protocols of Wiki but I am anxious, as I am sure are all working on OpenOffice, that users have as good an experience with it as possible. This includes best advice. As I say, I have no knowledge of the workings of Base, but I have seen the level and quality of advice offered by DACM and other Forum volunteers who specialise in that area, so my instinct would be to accept his considered opinion (and hence his Wiki postings) as best advice. I am not certain how ths matter might be best progressed, so I thought it best to lay before the dev ML. The full Forum thread is at http://forum.openoffice.org/en/forum/viewtopic.php?f=49&t=63999 At present the subsequent postings are for information relevant to the below posting. I have inserted a few breaks to avoid gripes about long lines from my mailer. The posting is: -- Subject: A Base issue cover-up? Poster: DACM (Forum volunteer) I consider it a distinct privilege to participate in this and other community forums, predominately in support of Base. The moderators have endured my sometimes outspoken critique of Base in the process of urging Base users to adopt a reliable database configuration for production data. I simply joined the [url=http://forum.openoffice.org/en/forum/viewtopic.php?f=83&t=17567]campaign of [b]r4zoli[/b][/url], [b]Sliderule[/b], [b]Villeroy[/b] and many others as we've sought to maintain a proper balance between transparency and Base/Office promotion -- as avid users ourselves. As a result, any 'seasoned' Base user is now keenly-aware of the Base instabilities associated with storing database-files internally, within the Base .odb file, otherwise known as 'embedded database' files. We continue to encounter newer/un-aware users that have fallen victim, and find themselves desperately begging for help with critical data recovery. For instance, [url=http://forum.openoffice.org/en/forum/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=63986]here's today's entry[/url]. Our support includes data-recovery, automated backups, configuration tutorials, data-migration tutorials, [url=http://forum.openoffice.org/en/forum/viewtopic.php?f=83&t=61183]automated templates[/url], examples, personalized user-help, etc. To that end, I've painstakingly generated detailed tutorials outlining each of these solutions (up through concurrent database access among multiple users in networked environments) to the official[color=#FF] [url=http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/FAQ_(Base)#HSQLDB]Apache OpenOffice.org Wiki[/url][/color]. I understand the nature of a Wiki (and the ability to 'undo' changes), but apparently those tutorials were removed recently by [b]Eschmenk[/b] citing "[i][url=http://wiki.openoffice.org/w/index.php?title=FAQ_(Base)&action=history]Major rewrite of some confusing sections.[/url][/i]" Now I can appreciate any effort to clarify while condensing my prose, but this effort substantially eliminated the tutorials and all links to this forum (leaving all others intact), while further sanitizing the content of any reference to data-corruption or known Base instabilities/workarounds/wizards/etc. In other words, [b]Eschmenk[/b] intentionally gutted the content and all references to easy/automated solutions, while effectively eliminating all motivation to avoid 'embedded database' files. What's left is a confusing and suspicious fraction of the original tutorials and information. This is troubling because we can no longer presume that new and inexperienced Base users have encountered data-corruption due to a lack of exposure to information channels. [color=#FF]If [b]Eschmenk[/b] represents an insider, then we we will soon be encountering victims who have lost data due to a lack of motivation/awareness, due to the sanitized nature of the propaganda allowed through official channels.[/color] Thankfully, we enjoy much greater transparency in this forum which serves to overcome the intentional misrepresentation of the facts by insiders. But it still hurts to realize that we have such [apparent and blatant] dishonesty in the form of a cover-up extant in the open-source community. :( See [url=http://www.mediafire.com/?m8yhn6xyc7mhewl]related excerpt[/url] (Sep 03, 2013) from: [url=http://www.mediafire.com/?6h7cqhv66u6793d]FAQ (Base) - Apache OpenOffice Wiki.pdf[/url] ... -- Rory O'Farrell - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
