Path: csiph.com!usenet.pasdenom.info!dedibox.gegeweb.org!gegeweb.eu!nntpfeed.proxad.net!proxad.net!feeder2-2.proxad.net!newsfeed.arcor.de!newsspool2.arcor-online.net!news.arcor.de.POSTED!not-for-mail Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Message-ID: <1696656.mVPJXBWz45@PointedEars.de> From: Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn Reply-To: Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn Organization: PointedEars Software (PES) Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2012 13:39:25 +0100 User-Agent: KNode/4.4.11 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit X-Face: %i>XG-yXR'\"2P/C_aO%~;2o~?g0pPKmbOw^=NT`tprDEf++D.m7"}HW6.#=U:?2GGctkL,f89@H46O$ASoW&?s}.k+&. <3cc09640-2227-4204-b588-fcacd7c9d0cb@qi8g2000pbb.googlegroups.com> Followup-To: comp.lang.javascript MIME-Version: 1.0 Lines: 57 NNTP-Posting-Date: 20 Nov 2012 13:39:26 CET NNTP-Posting-Host: f9f6a8f9.newsspool4.arcor-online.net X-Trace: DXC=mD>Vf8>nK2VmG86`U=_nC_4IUKKPMlUDQE;hSbTCOAcEhQ30IT X-Complaints-To: usenet-abuse@arcor.de Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.javascript:17318 RobG wrote: > On Nov 20, 7:34 am, Scott Sauyet wrote: >> Asen Bozhilov wrote: >> > One of the good resources is going to death if nobody maintains it. >> > [...] Give proposals for the new maintainer, also wiki pages is good >> > variant. >> >> Does anyone have experience setting up something like MediaWiki? >> >> Maybe we can just try this and see if it's working, keeping it in >> parallel for now with the existing FAQ. > > I think the traditional FAQ is a dead, an MDN style wiki is a better > idea. Since MDN is already far more extensive than the FAQ will ever > be (though very flawed), it may be better to just spend whatever time > contributors have updating articles there. > > First step would be to get the notes moved over, then find a good > place for each of the other articles. The CLJ FAQ, if it should > continue to exist, can then simply reference appropriate parts of MDN. I do not think the FAQ is dead. It has been suffering an extended period of time from being partially outdated, partially bad worded; so it needs to be updated and fixed. One should certainly strive to do that. (Actually, having seen my name coming up again, I have sent Jim Ley a certain e-mail yesterday and are awaiting his reply.) However, AISB (probably), it should not be attempted to make the FAQ into a documentation. That is not the purpose of a FAQ. If at all possible, it should give concise, clear answers to *frequently* *asked* *questions*, particularly to beginners, so that those questions need not be asked (by them) in the newsgroup, and regulars can deal with more interesting questions instead. Insofar I agree that details should be handled by references to external sources, if they exist and are of sufficient quality. (Actually, checking the quality of a source for potential reference in the FAQ may improve its quality as well.) Care must be taken with linking to wikis, though, for the information there may change at any time (and given that there are always fewer experts than intermediates, and fewer intermediates than novices, not necessarily for the better). Who is going to check for the quality of the referenced articles regularly? Therefore, given the choice, I would rather link to a good blog entry than a wiki article. I am thus not convinced that a wiki *instead* of a FAQ would work out. It might complement the FAQ (and eventually replace the FAQ Notes), but is it not easier and better for all of us to deep-link to regular's websites instead? PointedEars -- Sometimes, what you learn is wrong. If those wrong ideas are close to the root of the knowledge tree you build on a particular subject, pruning the bad branches can sometimes cause the whole tree to collapse. -- Mike Duffy in cljs,