On 04/07/2009, at 5:21 AM, randomcoder1 wrote: > Guess what , I'm in IT for several years now also , and I like writing > docs , no matter if it's a documenting my own code or > documenting the functionality that I'm implementing , keeping an > agenda > of what I did and what I still have to do. > It's called getting organized. If I don't do this it's going to get > out > of control sooner or later. > I like to write docs because I am sure that after 6 months from now > if I > look at my stuff it would make no difference if it was foreign code > or my own code. > So maybe your question should be "Ever met a very good developer who > likes writing doc?" > The answer I suspect is in the affirmative.
Good for you, but that's not really what we're talking about. >>>> and a lot of the docs have never been read by a developer. That >>>> being >>>> said, using FlaggedRevs we might be able to deliver more solid docs >>>> on MW.org by flagging docs at like two levels. One could be like >>>> a basic >>>> "has been looked over for glaring errors and basic readability" and >>>> a second could be "has been thoroughly reviewed and is considered >>>> the doc on the given subject." >>>> >>> Perhaps we could start by getting developers to thoroughly review >>> documentation? With no way of planning that review, nor of co-ordinating with other developers to make sure everything's been at least somewhat looked at, there's no point in doing so. >>> >>> You're proposing a technical solution to a people problem. The >>> problem >>> is not that the site can't display the fact that a developer vouches >>> for the quality of documentation. The problem is that there are no >>> processes for getting developers to review documentation and vouch >>> for >>> it. >> >> To further expand on my original statements, I'm not suggesting the >> developers >> are the only ones with in-depth knowledge of how Mediawiki works. >> There are >> certainly other members of the community we can trust to handle >> this task as >> well. I'm looking at this primarily as tools to aid in fixing a >> problem. Of course >> without work on part of document writers/reviewers, this won't go >> anywhere. Giving some indication of what's been checked and is authoritative and what isn't is generally a good idea. I don't document much on MediaWiki.org, but I sure don't mind checking over existing documentation. -- Andrew Garrett Contract Developer, Wikimedia Foundation agarr...@wikimedia.org http://werdn.us _______________________________________________ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
