Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.debian.user > #221266 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Reco <recoverym4n@enotuniq.net> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2020-04-12 10:50 +0200 |
| Last post | 2020-04-30 05:10 +0200 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 196 — 39 participants |
Back to article view | Back to linux.debian.user
Debian is testing Discourse Reco <recoverym4n@enotuniq.net> - 2020-04-12 10:50 +0200
Re: Debian is testing Discourse <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2020-04-12 11:00 +0200
Re: Debian is testing Discourse Brad Rogers <brad@fineby.me.uk> - 2020-04-12 11:30 +0200
Re: Debian is testing Discourse Felix Miata <mrmazda@earthlink.net> - 2020-04-12 11:50 +0200
Re: Debian is testing Discourse Eric S Fraga <e.fraga@ucl.ac.uk> - 2020-04-16 13:00 +0200
Re: Debian is testing Discourse <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2020-04-12 11:00 +0200
Re: Debian is testing Discourse Reco <recoverym4n@enotuniq.net> - 2020-04-12 11:10 +0200
Re: Debian is testing Discourse <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2020-04-12 11:20 +0200
Re: Debian is testing Discourse Reco <recoverym4n@enotuniq.net> - 2020-04-12 11:30 +0200
Re: Debian is testing Discourse Eike Lantzsch <zp6cge@gmx.net> - 2020-04-12 15:30 +0200
Re: Debian is testing Discourse Dan Purgert <dan@djph.net> - 2020-04-12 17:40 +0200
Re: Debian is testing Discourse Curt <curty@free.fr> - 2020-04-12 18:00 +0200
Re: Debian is testing Discourse Andrei POPESCU <andreimpopescu@gmail.com> - 2020-04-12 15:30 +0200
Re: Debian is testing Discourse Andrei POPESCU <andreimpopescu@gmail.com> - 2020-04-12 15:40 +0200
Re: Debian is testing Discourse Reco <recoverym4n@enotuniq.net> - 2020-04-12 15:50 +0200
Re: Debian is testing Discourse Andrei POPESCU <andreimpopescu@gmail.com> - 2020-04-12 16:40 +0200
Re: Debian is testing Discourse Steve McIntyre <steve@einval.com> - 2020-04-12 17:10 +0200
Re: Debian is testing Discourse Keith Christian <keith1christian@gmail.com> - 2020-04-12 16:00 +0200
Re: Debian is testing Discourse <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2020-04-12 16:30 +0200
Re: Debian is testing Discourse Andrei POPESCU <andreimpopescu@gmail.com> - 2020-04-12 17:10 +0200
Re: Debian is testing Discourse Nate Bargmann <n0nb@n0nb.us> - 2020-04-12 18:00 +0200
Re: Debian is testing Discourse Ihor Antonov <ihor@antonovs.family> - 2020-04-12 21:10 +0200
Re: Debian is testing Discourse Andrei POPESCU <andreimpopescu@gmail.com> - 2020-04-13 09:20 +0200
Re: Debian is testing Discourse Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> - 2020-04-13 21:40 +0200
Re: Debian is testing Discourse Andrei POPESCU <andreimpopescu@gmail.com> - 2020-04-14 09:20 +0200
Re: Debian is testing Discourse Curt <curty@free.fr> - 2020-04-14 10:30 +0200
Re: Debian is testing Discourse Andrei POPESCU <andreimpopescu@gmail.com> - 2020-04-14 10:50 +0200
Re: Debian is testing Discourse Curt <curty@free.fr> - 2020-04-14 11:50 +0200
Re: Debian is testing Discourse Andrei POPESCU <andreimpopescu@gmail.com> - 2020-04-14 17:20 +0200
Re: Debian is testing Discourse Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> - 2020-04-15 19:40 +0200
Re: Debian is testing Discourse Dan Purgert <dan@djph.net> - 2020-04-14 12:00 +0200
Re: Debian is testing Discourse rhkramer@gmail.com - 2020-04-14 14:20 +0200
Re: Debian is testing Discourse Reco <recoverym4n@enotuniq.net> - 2020-04-14 15:40 +0200
Re: Debian is testing Discourse Andy Smith <andy@strugglers.net> - 2020-04-15 06:20 +0200
Re: Debian is testing Discourse rhkramer@gmail.com - 2020-04-15 15:50 +0200
Re: Debian is testing Discourse Brad Rogers <brad@fineby.me.uk> - 2020-04-14 14:10 +0200
Re: Debian is testing Discourse Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> - 2020-04-14 13:40 +0200
Re: Debian is testing Discourse Celejar <celejar@gmail.com> - 2020-04-20 19:20 +0200
Re: Debian is testing Discourse David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2020-04-21 04:40 +0200
Re: Debian is testing Discourse Celejar <celejar@gmail.com> - 2020-04-21 05:10 +0200
Re: Debian is testing Discourse David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2020-04-21 06:40 +0200
Re: Debian is testing Discourse <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2020-04-21 09:20 +0200
Re: Debian is testing Discourse Jonathan Dowland <jon+debian-user@dow.land> - 2020-04-21 12:20 +0200
Re: Debian is testing Discourse Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> - 2020-04-21 21:10 +0200
Re: Debian is testing Discourse David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2020-04-23 00:50 +0200
Re: Debian is testing Discourse deloptes <deloptes@gmail.com> - 2020-04-23 08:40 +0200
Re: Debian is testing Discourse <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2020-04-23 09:10 +0200
Re: Debian is testing Discourse deloptes <deloptes@gmail.com> - 2020-04-23 21:30 +0200
Re: Debian is testing Discourse Marco Möller <talby@debianlists.mobilxpress.net> - 2020-04-23 23:50 +0200
Contributing to Debian documentation [was: Debian is testing Discourse] Andrei POPESCU <andreimpopescu@gmail.com> - 2020-04-24 09:50 +0200
Re: Debian is testing Discourse Andrei POPESCU <andreimpopescu@gmail.com> - 2020-04-23 14:00 +0200
Re: Debian is testing Discourse <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2020-04-23 14:30 +0200
Re: Debian is testing Discourse Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> - 2020-04-23 20:50 +0200
Re: Debian is testing Discourse David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2020-04-23 21:10 +0200
Re: Debian is testing Discourse Daniel Barclay <danielbarclay.oss@gmail.com> - 2020-04-29 18:30 +0200
Re: Debian is testing Discourse Andrei POPESCU <andreimpopescu@gmail.com> - 2020-04-29 18:50 +0200
Re: Debian is testing Discourse Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> - 2020-04-29 21:20 +0200
Re: Debian is testing Discourse Daniel Barclay <danielbarclay.oss@gmail.com> - 2020-05-07 20:30 +0200
Re: Debian is testing Discourse Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> - 2020-05-07 21:40 +0200
Re: Debian is testing Discourse Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> - 2020-04-23 20:20 +0200
Re: Debian is testing Discourse Jonathan Dowland <jon+debian-user@dow.land> - 2020-04-23 11:30 +0200
Re: Debian is testing Discourse Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> - 2020-04-23 19:50 +0200
Re: Debian is testing Discourse Andrei POPESCU <andreimpopescu@gmail.com> - 2020-04-24 10:10 +0200
Re: Debian is testing Discourse Greg Wooledge <wooledg@eeg.ccf.org> - 2020-04-24 14:30 +0200
Re: Debian is testing Discourse Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> - 2020-04-24 18:50 +0200
Re: Debian is testing Discourse rhkramer@gmail.com - 2020-04-24 20:20 +0200
Re: Debian is testing Discourse Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> - 2020-04-24 21:20 +0200
Re: Debian is testing Discourse Jonathan Dowland <jon+debian-user@dow.land> - 2020-04-27 16:00 +0200
Re: Debian is testing Discourse Ihor Antonov <ngor@antonovs.family> - 2020-04-21 06:40 +0200
Re: Debian is testing Discourse deloptes <deloptes@gmail.com> - 2020-04-21 08:20 +0200
Re: Debian is testing Discourse Andrei POPESCU <andreimpopescu@gmail.com> - 2020-04-12 11:00 +0200
Re: Debian is testing Discourse Andy Smith <andy@strugglers.net> - 2020-04-12 14:10 +0200
Re: Debian is testing Discourse Michael Howard <mike@dewberryfields.co.uk> - 2020-04-12 14:40 +0200
Re: Debian is testing Discourse Andrei POPESCU <andreimpopescu@gmail.com> - 2020-04-12 15:30 +0200
Re: Debian is testing Discourse <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2020-04-12 15:50 +0200
Re: Debian is testing Discourse Keith Bainbridge <ke1th3216@zoho.com> - 2020-04-13 07:10 +0200
Re: Debian is testing Discourse Andy Smith <andy@strugglers.net> - 2020-04-13 11:50 +0200
Re: Debian is testing Discourse Dan Purgert <dan@djph.net> - 2020-04-13 13:40 +0200
Re: Debian is testing Discourse nito@dismail.de - 2020-04-12 15:50 +0200
Re: Debian is testing Discourse Andrei POPESCU <andreimpopescu@gmail.com> - 2020-04-12 17:20 +0200
Re: Debian is testing Discourse nito@dismail.de - 2020-04-12 18:00 +0200
Re: Debian is testing Discourse Nate Bargmann <n0nb@n0nb.us> - 2020-04-12 17:40 +0200
Re: Debian is testing Discourse john doe <johndoe65534@mail.com> - 2020-04-12 21:20 +0200
Re: Debian is testing Discourse John Hasler <jhasler@newsguy.com> - 2020-04-12 21:50 +0200
Re: Debian is testing Discourse Ihor Antonov <ihor@antonovs.family> - 2020-04-12 21:50 +0200
Re: Debian is testing Discourse Steve McIntyre <steve@einval.com> - 2020-04-13 03:40 +0200
Re: Debian is testing Discourse Celejar <celejar@gmail.com> - 2020-04-13 06:40 +0200
Moderation (not!) [was: Debian is testing Discourse] <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2020-04-13 09:20 +0200
Re: Moderation (not!) [was: Debian is testing Discourse] Curt <curty@free.fr> - 2020-04-13 10:30 +0200
Re: Moderation (not!) [was: Debian is testing Discourse] <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2020-04-13 10:40 +0200
Re: Moderation (not!) [was: Debian is testing Discourse] Andrei POPESCU <andreimpopescu@gmail.com> - 2020-04-13 11:00 +0200
Re: Moderation (not!) [was: Debian is testing Discourse] Brad Rogers <brad@fineby.me.uk> - 2020-04-13 11:00 +0200
Re: Moderation (not!) [was: Debian is testing Discourse] <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2020-04-13 11:10 +0200
Re: Moderation (not!) [was: Debian is testing Discourse] Brad Rogers <brad@fineby.me.uk> - 2020-04-13 11:50 +0200
Re: Moderation (not!) [was: Debian is testing Discourse] Sven Hartge <sven@svenhartge.de> - 2020-04-13 18:00 +0200
Re: Moderation (not!) [was: Debian is testing Discourse] Brad Rogers <brad@fineby.me.uk> - 2020-04-13 22:10 +0200
Re: Moderation (not!) [was: Debian is testing Discourse] Sven Hartge <sven@svenhartge.de> - 2020-04-13 22:20 +0200
Re: Moderation (not!) [was: Debian is testing Discourse] John Hasler <jhasler@newsguy.com> - 2020-04-13 15:30 +0200
Re: Moderation (not!) [was: Debian is testing Discourse] Dan Purgert <dan@djph.net> - 2020-04-13 15:30 +0200
Re: Moderation (not!) [was: Debian is testing Discourse] John Hasler <jhasler@newsguy.com> - 2020-04-13 17:40 +0200
Re: Moderation (not!) [was: Debian is testing Discourse] Brad Rogers <brad@fineby.me.uk> - 2020-04-13 22:10 +0200
Re: Moderation (not!) [was: Debian is testing Discourse] Andrei POPESCU <andreimpopescu@gmail.com> - 2020-04-14 09:30 +0200
Re: Moderation (not!) [was: Debian is testing Discourse] Brad Rogers <brad@fineby.me.uk> - 2020-04-14 14:20 +0200
Re: Moderation (not!) [was: Debian is testing Discourse] Curt <curty@free.fr> - 2020-04-13 11:00 +0200
Re: Moderation (not!) [was: Debian is testing Discourse] Dan Purgert <dan@djph.net> - 2020-04-13 13:40 +0200
Re: Moderation (not!) [was: Debian is testing Discourse] soyeomul@doraji.xyz (황병희) - 2020-04-14 05:10 +0200
Re: Moderation (not!) [was: Debian is testing Discourse] <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2020-04-14 10:20 +0200
Re: Moderation (not!) [was: Debian is testing Discourse] John Hasler <jhasler@newsguy.com> - 2020-04-13 15:10 +0200
Re: Moderation (not!) [was: Debian is testing Discourse] Reco <recoverym4n@enotuniq.net> - 2020-04-13 15:50 +0200
Re: Debian is testing Discourse Tom Dial <tddial@comcast.net> - 2020-04-13 23:30 +0200
Re: Debian is testing Discourse Curt <curty@free.fr> - 2020-04-14 11:00 +0200
Re: Debian is testing Discourse Brad Rogers <brad@fineby.me.uk> - 2020-04-14 14:10 +0200
Re: Debian is testing Discourse Dan Ritter <dsr@randomstring.org> - 2020-04-14 15:40 +0200
Re: Debian is testing Discourse Peter Ehlert <peter@sdi-baja.com> - 2020-04-14 16:20 +0200
Re: Debian is testing Discourse Brad Rogers <brad@fineby.me.uk> - 2020-04-14 17:00 +0200
Re: Debian is testing Discourse Carl Fink <carlf@panix.com> - 2020-04-14 17:30 +0200
Re: Debian is testing Discourse Brad Rogers <brad@fineby.me.uk> - 2020-04-14 18:40 +0200
Re: Debian is testing Discourse John Hasler <jhasler@newsguy.com> - 2020-04-14 19:10 +0200
Re: Debian is testing Discourse Brad Rogers <brad@fineby.me.uk> - 2020-04-14 20:10 +0200
Re: Debian is testing Discourse Sven Hartge <sven@svenhartge.de> - 2020-04-14 20:20 +0200
Re: Debian is testing Discourse John Hasler <jhasler@newsguy.com> - 2020-04-14 20:40 +0200
Re: Debian is testing Discourse Brad Rogers <brad@fineby.me.uk> - 2020-04-15 08:20 +0200
Re: Debian is testing Discourse Andrei POPESCU <andreimpopescu@gmail.com> - 2020-04-15 10:00 +0200
Re: Debian is testing Discourse Brad Rogers <brad@fineby.me.uk> - 2020-04-14 17:00 +0200
Re: Debian is testing Discourse John Hasler <jhasler@newsguy.com> - 2020-04-14 17:40 +0200
Re: Debian is testing Discourse Andrei POPESCU <andreimpopescu@gmail.com> - 2020-04-14 17:40 +0200
Re: Debian is testing Discourse Andrei POPESCU <andreimpopescu@gmail.com> - 2020-04-13 09:30 +0200
Re: Debian is testing Discourse Andrei POPESCU <andreimpopescu@gmail.com> - 2020-04-13 10:20 +0200
Re: Debian is testing Discourse <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2020-04-13 10:20 +0200
Re: Debian is testing Discourse <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2020-04-13 14:40 +0200
Re: Debian is testing Discourse Nate Bargmann <n0nb@n0nb.us> - 2020-04-13 14:40 +0200
Re: Debian is testing Discourse Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> - 2020-04-13 17:20 +0200
Re: Debian is testing Discourse Sven Hartge <sven@svenhartge.de> - 2020-04-13 18:10 +0200
Re: Debian is testing Discourse Michael Howard <mike@dewberryfields.co.uk> - 2020-04-13 18:20 +0200
Re: Debian is testing Discourse John Hasler <jhasler@newsguy.com> - 2020-04-13 18:50 +0200
Re: Debian is testing Discourse John Hasler <jhasler@newsguy.com> - 2020-04-13 19:00 +0200
Re: Debian is testing Discourse Sven Hartge <sven@svenhartge.de> - 2020-04-13 19:20 +0200
Re: Debian is testing Discourse Sven Hartge <sven@svenhartge.de> - 2020-04-13 20:20 +0200
Re: Debian is testing Discourse Curt <curty@free.fr> - 2020-04-13 20:40 +0200
Re: Debian is testing Discourse Sven Hartge <sven@svenhartge.de> - 2020-04-13 21:10 +0200
Re: Debian is testing Discourse Dan Ritter <dsr@randomstring.org> - 2020-04-13 21:40 +0200
Re: Debian is testing Discourse Dan Purgert <dan@djph.net> - 2020-04-13 21:50 +0200
Re: Debian is testing Discourse Brad Rogers <brad@fineby.me.uk> - 2020-04-13 22:10 +0200
Re: Debian is testing Discourse Curt <curty@free.fr> - 2020-04-14 10:00 +0200
Re: Debian is testing Discourse Andrei POPESCU <andreimpopescu@gmail.com> - 2020-04-14 10:20 +0200
Re: Debian is testing Discourse Sven Hartge <sven@svenhartge.de> - 2020-04-14 13:30 +0200
Re: Debian is testing Discourse Brad Rogers <brad@fineby.me.uk> - 2020-04-14 14:10 +0200
Re: Debian is testing Discourse Brad Rogers <brad@fineby.me.uk> - 2020-04-14 14:10 +0200
Re: Debian is testing Discourse Michael Howard <mike@dewberryfields.co.uk> - 2020-04-13 21:40 +0200
Re: Debian is testing Discourse Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> - 2020-04-13 21:50 +0200
Re: Debian is testing Discourse Felix Miata <mrmazda@earthlink.net> - 2020-04-13 22:00 +0200
Re: Debian is testing Discourse John Hasler <jhasler@newsguy.com> - 2020-04-13 22:00 +0200
Re: Debian is testing Discourse Dan Purgert <dan@djph.net> - 2020-04-13 22:10 +0200
Re: Debian is testing Discourse Sven Hartge <sven@svenhartge.de> - 2020-04-13 22:40 +0200
Re: Debian is testing Discourse Andrei POPESCU <andreimpopescu@gmail.com> - 2020-04-14 09:40 +0200
Re: Debian is testing Discourse Sven Hartge <sven@svenhartge.de> - 2020-04-14 13:20 +0200
Re: Debian is testing Discourse Michael Howard <mike@dewberryfields.co.uk> - 2020-04-13 20:20 +0200
Re: Debian is testing Discourse Dan Purgert <dan@djph.net> - 2020-04-13 21:40 +0200
Re: Debian is testing Discourse Sven Hartge <sven@svenhartge.de> - 2020-04-13 22:30 +0200
Re: Debian is testing Discourse Dan Purgert <dan@djph.net> - 2020-04-13 22:40 +0200
Re: Debian is testing Discourse Sven Hartge <sven@svenhartge.de> - 2020-04-13 23:00 +0200
Re: Debian is testing Discourse Dan Purgert <dan@djph.net> - 2020-04-14 02:00 +0200
Re: Debian is testing Discourse Nate Bargmann <n0nb@n0nb.us> - 2020-04-14 02:00 +0200
Re: Debian is testing Discourse Daniel Barclay <danielbarclay.oss@gmail.com> - 2020-04-29 19:00 +0200
Re: Debian is testing Discourse Dan Ritter <dsr@randomstring.org> - 2020-04-29 20:20 +0200
Re: Debian is testing Discourse The Wanderer <wanderer@fastmail.fm> - 2020-04-29 21:00 +0200
Re: Debian is testing Discourse <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2020-04-29 21:20 +0200
Re: Debian is testing Discourse Nicolas George <george@nsup.org> - 2020-04-29 22:10 +0200
Postel's principle [was: Debian is testing Discourse] <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2020-04-29 22:20 +0200
Re: Debian is testing Discourse Greg Wooledge <wooledg@eeg.ccf.org> - 2020-04-30 00:00 +0200
Re: Debian is testing Discourse rhkramer@gmail.com - 2020-04-30 02:10 +0200
Re: Debian is testing Discourse rhkramer@gmail.com - 2020-04-30 00:00 +0200
Re: Debian is testing Discourse Daniel Barclay <danielbarclay.oss@gmail.com> - 2020-05-07 20:30 +0200
Re: Debian is testing Discourse Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> - 2020-05-07 22:10 +0200
Re: Debian is testing Discourse Reco <recoverym4n@enotuniq.net> - 2020-04-13 18:50 +0200
Re: Debian is testing Discourse Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> - 2020-04-13 19:20 +0200
Re: Debian is testing Discourse Reco <recoverym4n@enotuniq.net> - 2020-04-13 19:20 +0200
Re: Debian is testing Discourse Kenneth Parker <sea7kenp@gmail.com> - 2020-04-14 02:20 +0200
Re: Debian is testing Discourse John Hasler <jhasler@newsguy.com> - 2020-04-14 02:50 +0200
Re: Debian is testing Discourse Kenneth Parker <sea7kenp@gmail.com> - 2020-04-14 03:40 +0200
Re: Debian is testing Discourse John Hasler <jhasler@newsguy.com> - 2020-04-14 04:00 +0200
Re: Debian is testing Discourse Dan Purgert <dan@djph.net> - 2020-04-14 12:00 +0200
Re: Debian is testing Discourse Brad Rogers <brad@fineby.me.uk> - 2020-04-14 14:10 +0200
Re: Debian is testing Discourse Dan Purgert <dan@djph.net> - 2020-04-14 14:30 +0200
Re: Debian is testing Discourse Brad Rogers <brad@fineby.me.uk> - 2020-04-14 15:30 +0200
Re: Debian is testing Discourse Dan Purgert <dan@djph.net> - 2020-04-14 16:20 +0200
Re: Debian is testing Discourse Michael Howard <mike@dewberryfields.co.uk> - 2020-04-13 20:20 +0200
Re: Debian is testing Discourse Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> - 2020-04-13 20:30 +0200
Re: Debian is testing Discourse Glenn Holmer <glenn.holmer@gmail.com> - 2020-04-14 16:50 +0200
Re: Debian is testing Discourse Nate Bargmann <n0nb@n0nb.us> - 2020-04-23 01:50 +0200
Re: Debian is testing Discourse Daniel Barclay <danielbarclay.oss@gmail.com> - 2020-04-29 19:10 +0200
Re: Debian is testing Discourse Andrei POPESCU <andreimpopescu@gmail.com> - 2020-04-29 19:20 +0200
Re: Debian is testing Discourse Daniel Barclay <danielbarclay.oss@gmail.com> - 2020-04-29 21:10 +0200
Re: Debian is testing Discourse Andrei POPESCU <andreimpopescu@gmail.com> - 2020-04-30 07:20 +0200
Re: Debian is testing Discourse Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> - 2020-04-29 21:30 +0200
Re: Debian is testing Discourse Nate Bargmann <n0nb@n0nb.us> - 2020-04-30 05:10 +0200
Page 3 of 10 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 … 10 Next page →
| From | David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-04-21 06:40 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <zXSRr-4cj-1@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #221774 |
On Mon 20 Apr 2020 at 23:05:54 (-0400), Celejar wrote:
> On Mon, 20 Apr 2020 21:33:37 -0500
> David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > On Mon 20 Apr 2020 at 13:13:50 (-0400), Celejar wrote:
> > > On Tue, 14 Apr 2020 10:19:13 +0300
> > > Andrei POPESCU <andreimpopescu@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > ...
> > >
> > > > about Debian on non-Debian platforms (like StackExchange), the other one
> > > > being the Arch's wiki (significantly better than Debian's).
> > >
> > > Everyone loves the Arch wiki - I've long wondered why it's so much
> > > better than ours. Do they just have more community-minded users?
> >
> > It looks better curated, organised and structured. The latter is hardly
> > surprising when you read Debian's FAQ¹:
> >
> > Q) Wouldn't the wiki be more useful if it was better organized?
> > A) Possibly, but a structured wiki is largely a contradiction in terms.
> > It's more important to give it good content.
>
> In my experience, the content of the Arch wiki is ofter far superior to
> ours, not just the organization and structure.
I don't know what the writer of those two sentences meant by
structure, but I specifically mentioned the Discussion page
(≡ Wikipedia's Talk page) which I think is an important
factor in improving content.
Here's how the Debian wiki sometimes works (or, rather, fails to):
A to list> I have a problem with …
B to A> Doing so-and-so should fix it.
C to A> Try doing this. And I guess you should also do that.
B to C> Why would you do that? That's wrong; see wiki on Foo.
C to B> But surely X suggests to do Y. Your fix is confusing.
B to C> Read the wiki which shows so-and-so is correct.
C to B> I disagree, it doesn't show that.
B to C> OK, I'll explain in great detail just what's happening.
(Detailed explanation follows.)
C to B> Great, that really explains it well. Perhaps that summary
should go on the wiki.
B to C> Anyone can edit the wiki. (Implying: Why don't you do it.)
So the person who made a poor suggestion showing that they didn't
understand the problem, but now (one hopes) has a slightly firmer
grasp of what's going on, is left to edit the wiki. (In this case,
five years ago, they declined.)
Now compare with Arch's "Contributing". Do you think the Debian page
for "Foo", above, is on anyone's watchlist?
> > So they have different philosophies. Perhaps Debian puts more effort
> > into the packages themselves, the installer, and documentation like
> > the Reference Manual, Release Notes etc, whereas AIUI Arch relies
> > more on its wiki. And I think Debian has a much broader scope:
>
> But the Debian documentation you mention doesn't cover a great deal
> of practical, real-world areas of system configuration, maintenance,
> and use, at least not in any useful, up-to-date way.
I was being charitable.
> The Arch wiki, in
> my experience, simply does a much better job at documenting this sort of
> stuff than any Debian documentation.
That's why I wrote "curated". There are some dedicated people working
on their wiki. Look at their News or Statistics pages.
Cheers,
David.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | <tomas@tuxteam.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-04-21 09:20 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <zXVmi-5Na-13@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #221775 |
[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw
On Mon, Apr 20, 2020 at 11:35:00PM -0500, David Wright wrote:
[...]
> That's why I wrote "curated". There are some dedicated people working
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> on their wiki. Look at their News or Statistics pages.
This is it, I think. We as geeks tend to invent technical thingies
("discussion page", whatever), to avoid doing the Hard Work (TM),
but thing is, that at the very bottom, people can't be substituted
when it comes to write documentation for... people.
Technology is fine, but it's a tool.
I'm sure there are a few very gifted folks at Arch Wiki's root who
acted as cristallization points for that breathtaking beauty.
Cheers
-- t
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jonathan Dowland <jon+debian-user@dow.land> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-04-21 12:20 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <zXYau-7uN-7@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #221775 |
On Mon, Apr 20, 2020 at 11:35:00PM -0500, David Wright wrote: >I don't know what the writer of those two sentences meant by >structure, but I specifically mentioned the Discussion page >(≡ Wikipedia's Talk page) which I think is an important >factor in improving content. At some point a long time ago, the Debian Wiki administrators (at the time) decided to direct meta-discussions towards the debian-www@ mailing list, instead of Discussion pages. I think this was a mistake, and it's something I've been wanting to push back on for some time, but it hasn't raised up my TODO list far enough. -- 👱🏻 Jonathan Dowland 🔗 https://jmtd.net
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-04-21 21:10 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <zY6rp-47E-31@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #221784 |
On Tue 21 Apr 2020 at 11:18:14 +0100, Jonathan Dowland wrote: > On Mon, Apr 20, 2020 at 11:35:00PM -0500, David Wright wrote: > > I don't know what the writer of those two sentences meant by > > structure, but I specifically mentioned the Discussion page > > (≡ Wikipedia's Talk page) which I think is an important > > factor in improving content. > > At some point a long time ago, the Debian Wiki administrators (at the > time) decided to direct meta-discussions towards the debian-www@ mailing > list, instead of Discussion pages. I think this was a mistake, and it's > something I've been wanting to push back on for some time, but it hasn't > raised up my TODO list far enough. I do not have a TODO list, but pushing all wiki issues onto debian-www probably wasn't the best of ideas. It seems to me that discourse would be a good place to put them. At the same time, what is the point of discusssion? A user thinks a technical point on the wiki is wrong; they know it is wrong; they change it. Where's the problem? -- Brian.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-04-23 00:50 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <zYwlQ-2OS-7@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #221802 |
On Tue 21 Apr 2020 at 20:07:55 (+0100), Brian wrote: > On Tue 21 Apr 2020 at 11:18:14 +0100, Jonathan Dowland wrote: > > > On Mon, Apr 20, 2020 at 11:35:00PM -0500, David Wright wrote: > > > I don't know what the writer of those two sentences meant by > > > structure, but I specifically mentioned the Discussion page > > > (≡ Wikipedia's Talk page) which I think is an important > > > factor in improving content. > > > > At some point a long time ago, the Debian Wiki administrators (at the > > time) decided to direct meta-discussions towards the debian-www@ mailing > > list, instead of Discussion pages. I think this was a mistake, and it's > > something I've been wanting to push back on for some time, but it hasn't > > raised up my TODO list far enough. > > I do not have a TODO list, but pushing all wiki issues onto debian-www > probably wasn't the best of ideas. It seems to me that discourse would > be a good place to put them. > > At the same time, what is the point of discusssion? A user thinks a > technical point on the wiki is wrong; they know it is wrong; they change > it. Where's the problem? 1. Going from thinking to knowing. Even assuming they're well-informed, it may be worth checking with other people running different systems about what's wrong, and what the new text should say. 2. Pages often need more than just piecemeal corrections: they may need someone with a sense of ownership to restructure them, or even to coordinate a rewrite when they lose focus. Cheers, David.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | deloptes <deloptes@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-04-23 08:40 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <zYDGF-7gS-3@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #221830 |
David Wright wrote: > 1. Going from thinking to knowing. Even assuming they're well-informed, > it may be worth checking with other people running different systems > about what's wrong, and what the new text should say. > > 2. Pages often need more than just piecemeal corrections: they may > need someone with a sense of ownership to restructure them, or even > to coordinate a rewrite when they lose focus. > totally agree with you. You see what happens to wikipedia. (I mean wikipedia can not be trusted. it was prooven that people falsify information or impose censorship). Best would be to have ownership and the community to decide what needs to be there, after which the owner of the document can edit.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | <tomas@tuxteam.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-04-23 09:10 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <zYE9I-7FS-11@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #221844 |
[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw
On Thu, Apr 23, 2020 at 08:29:46AM +0200, deloptes wrote: > David Wright wrote: > > > 1. Going from thinking to knowing. Even assuming they're well-informed, > > it may be worth checking with other people running different systems > > about what's wrong, and what the new text should say. > > > > 2. Pages often need more than just piecemeal corrections: they may > > need someone with a sense of ownership to restructure them, or even > > to coordinate a rewrite when they lose focus. > > > > totally agree with you. You see what happens to wikipedia. (I mean wikipedia > can not be trusted. it was prooven that people falsify information or > impose censorship). [citation needed] Now irony aside: manipulation efforts are to be expected on high visibility sites like Wikipedia. I think that, given the constraints, it's doing a pretty good job nevertheless. If you pick anything up on the internet, don't swallow it right away, says my doctor. What's your source of wisdom? Facebook? > Best would be to have ownership and the community to decide what needs to be > there, after which the owner of the document can edit. Each scheme has its advantages and disadvantages. The one you propose mimicks Debian's traditional packaging setup -- although you see more and more team-owned packages nowadays. Cheers -- t
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | deloptes <deloptes@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-04-23 21:30 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <zYPHP-64B-15@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #221847 |
tomas@tuxteam.de wrote: > [citation needed] > > Now irony aside: manipulation efforts are to be expected on high > visibility sites like Wikipedia. I think that, given the constraints, > it's doing a pretty good job nevertheless. > > If you pick anything up on the internet, don't swallow it right away, > says my doctor. > > What's your source of wisdom? Facebook? Nope - personal experience and I gave up on wikipedia 10+y ago. But the story of "Felix" is worth following If you read German: https://kenfm.de/tagesdosis-26-2-2019-wikipedia-manipulationen-feliks-darf-nach-gerichtsurteil-wieder-mit-klarnamen-genannt-werden/ or search for "Markus Fiedler Felix Wikipedia" I am confident that many topics are being edited without any factual evidence by very "interesting" people, who seem to have the time to follow all the topics of their interest. I won't go into detail, but I leave it to your imagination. Also at universities it is not considered as a source - with good reason I would add. Consequently I came to the conclusion that freedom in sense of anarchy is not possible and thus any structure based on it will not hold. Meritocracy however proves successful. Imagine the linux kernel without Linuz - it would never work. So it seems at the end there should be one to "sign of" and "merge" the changes. While there are good articles on the debian wiki, there are also bad once and if you are not familiar with linux and debian, you never know what you are dealing with. There are also many not well maintained or outdated (and don't ask for examples please). If you ask me, there should be someone close to the development in specific area, who can sign of documents to be published online. Let the community come with suggestions in the background and you adopt the changes you think are meaningful. If you wish be it something like a blog, but to the front should come only high quality.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Marco Möller <talby@debianlists.mobilxpress.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-04-23 23:50 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <zYRTj-7iv-13@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #221876 |
On 23.04.20 21:24, deloptes wrote: (...) > While there are good articles on the debian wiki, there are also bad once > and if you are not familiar with linux and debian, you never know what you > are dealing with. There are also many not well maintained or outdated (and > don't ask for examples please). > > If you ask me, there should be someone close to the development in specific > area, who can sign of documents to be published online. Let the community > come with suggestions in the background and you adopt the changes you think > are meaningful. If you wish be it something like a blog, but to the front > should come only high quality. (...) Exactly this! I always double check with the Arch Wiki in order to find out if a Debian page might still be a valid reference. Not a professional but at least being a well informed Debian desktop user, and already having seen too many of technically outdated advise in the Debian documentation, its simply worth it. Admittedly, I (by now) never volunteered to report a bug in the documentation or even write a patch, because I am afraid to introduce another mistake and then becoming bashed by the real experts, or even worse my mistakes staying uncovered and unfortunately then doing harm to other people searching for help. If there would be some expert instance for proof reading my suggestions, then I would like to actively participate in improving the documentation. Best wishes! Marco.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Andrei POPESCU <andreimpopescu@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-04-24 09:50 +0200 |
| Subject | Contributing to Debian documentation [was: Debian is testing Discourse] |
| Message-ID | <zZ1fY-4yL-13@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #221881 |
[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw
On Jo, 23 apr 20, 23:42:35, Marco Möller wrote: > Admittedly, I (by now) never volunteered to report a bug in the > documentation or even write a patch, because I am afraid to introduce > another mistake and then becoming bashed by the real experts, or even worse > my mistakes staying uncovered and unfortunately then doing harm to other > people searching for help. For reporting bugs and proposing patches the risk of introducing mistakes is too low to matter as the package maintainer will review before applying. Being "bashed" by experts should not happen, regardless of whether your contribution is correct or not. Please report any instances to the service maintainer (listmaster@ for lists.debian.org, owner@ for bugs.debian.org, etc.). > If there would be some expert instance for proof reading my suggestions, > then I would like to actively participate in improving the documentation. Please do feel free to edit the FAQ in my signature without asking. I am subscribed and will review any contribution (including removal of irrelevant content)[1]. Just in case this is not obvious, this applies to anybody, not just Marco. While I'm by far not an expert I do have enough experience with Debian to provide a reasonably good safety net. In case of doubt we can discuss major changes here or even ask the experts. [1] some entries should probably be replaced with pointers to the respective canonical documentation. Kind regards, Andrei -- http://wiki.debian.org/FAQsFromDebianUser
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Andrei POPESCU <andreimpopescu@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-04-23 14:00 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <zYIGl-1K2-11@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #221830 |
[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw
On Mi, 22 apr 20, 17:44:00, David Wright wrote: > On Tue 21 Apr 2020 at 20:07:55 (+0100), Brian wrote: > > > > At the same time, what is the point of discusssion? A user thinks a > > technical point on the wiki is wrong; they know it is wrong; they change > > it. Where's the problem? > > 1. Going from thinking to knowing. Even assuming they're well-informed, > it may be worth checking with other people running different systems > about what's wrong, and what the new text should say. The best thing about a wiki is that anyone can edit it[1]. Having to check with others first would, in my opinion, just hinder contributions. Reverts are much easier to do than edits ;) > 2. Pages often need more than just piecemeal corrections: they may > need someone with a sense of ownership to restructure them, or even > to coordinate a rewrite when they lose focus. This looks very much like "The Cathedral and the Bazaar"[2] models. In my opinion a wiki is much better suited for the bazaar model, the cathedral model you seem to be advocating is better suited for more formal documents (Debian Policy, Installation Guide, Release Notes, etc.). Reminder: development of all Debian manuals is open, anyone is free to report bugs and/or provide suggestions, preferably as patches. [1] Unfortunately this can also mean that nobody is actually editing it. [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Cathedral_and_the_Bazaar Kind regards, Andrei -- http://wiki.debian.org/FAQsFromDebianUser
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | <tomas@tuxteam.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-04-23 14:30 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <zYJ9o-28Z-5@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #221859 |
[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw
On Thu, Apr 23, 2020 at 02:56:36PM +0300, Andrei POPESCU wrote: > This looks very much like "The Cathedral and the Bazaar" models. > > In my opinion a wiki is much better suited for the bazaar model [...] I think you are right, in principle. That said, I don't believe you'll get as outstanding a result as Arch Wiki is by just bazaaring around. Cheers -- tomas "all generalizations suck"
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-04-23 20:50 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <zYP57-5BG-1@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #221860 |
On Thu 23 Apr 2020 at 14:24:06 +0200, tomas@tuxteam.de wrote: > On Thu, Apr 23, 2020 at 02:56:36PM +0300, Andrei POPESCU wrote: > > > This looks very much like "The Cathedral and the Bazaar" models. > > > > In my opinion a wiki is much better suited for the bazaar model [...] > > I think you are right, in principle. That said, I don't believe you'll > get as outstanding a result as Arch Wiki is by just bazaaring around. "bazaaring". What a lovely use of the English language! I think it is about time we had some concrete examples of "outstanding". Preferably technical in nature. Contrasts would be useful. -- Brian.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-04-23 21:10 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <zYPov-5XI-33@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #221859 |
On Thu 23 Apr 2020 at 08:29:46 (+0200), deloptes wrote: > David Wright wrote: > > > 1. Going from thinking to knowing. Even assuming they're well-informed, > > it may be worth checking with other people running different systems > > about what's wrong, and what the new text should say. > > > > 2. Pages often need more than just piecemeal corrections: they may > > need someone with a sense of ownership to restructure them, or even > > to coordinate a rewrite when they lose focus. > > totally agree with you. You see what happens to wikipedia. (I mean wikipedia > can not be trusted. it was prooven that people falsify information or > impose censorship). It depends what sort of pages you're reading. I think it's fairly obvious that there are going to be contentious topics that attract those problems, and in some cases investigators have even tracked the source of edits via IP addresses and suchlike. But that tends not to be the sort of information I'm looking for on wikipedia. > Best would be to have ownership and the community to decide what needs to be > there, after which the owner of the document can edit. On Thu 23 Apr 2020 at 14:56:36 (+0300), Andrei POPESCU wrote: > The best thing about a wiki is that anyone can edit it[1]. Having to > check with others first would, in my opinion, just hinder contributions. > [1] Unfortunately this can also mean that nobody is actually editing it. I haven't said that they can't, but only that they can choose, on the basis of their own knowledge, whether to edit the page directly or else to suggest changes in the discussion area. And I totally agree with Jonathan Dowland that the worst decision was separating the discussion area from the page. I also think that the page's History should be there too, not just in a time-sorted sidebar of miscellaneous individual changes made across the entire Debian wiki (and which evaporate after a few days or weeks). > > 2. Pages often need more than just piecemeal corrections: they may > > need someone with a sense of ownership to restructure them, or even > > to coordinate a rewrite when they lose focus. > > This looks very much like "The Cathedral and the Bazaar"[2] models. > > In my opinion a wiki is much better suited for the bazaar model, the > cathedral model you seem to be advocating is better suited for more > formal documents (Debian Policy, Installation Guide, Release Notes, > etc.). I'm not advocating the Cathedral model at all: I deliberately wrote "sense of ownership¹" and not "ownership". IOW it helps if there people who care not only about the raw information in the wiki, but how it's expressed and presentation. Clean-up can vary from increasing clarity by removing unintentional ambiguities and improving unidiomatic phrases (many contributors are not writing in their mother tongues), to regrouping related information, prioritising the order in which it's presented, inserting headings, and so on. > Reminder: development of all Debian manuals is open, anyone is free to > report bugs and/or provide suggestions, preferably as patches. *These* are, rightly, the Cathedral. > [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Cathedral_and_the_Bazaar ¹ a sense of ownership is shown by somebody who walks their street after school turns out, picking up the litter, and then does the same whenever they visit their favourite beauty spot. Cheers, David.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Daniel Barclay <danielbarclay.oss@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-04-29 18:30 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <A0XKV-33s-9@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #221859 |
Andrei POPESCU wrote: > ... > The best thing about a wiki is that anyone can edit it[1]. Having to > check with others first would, in my opinion, just hinder contributions. > > Reverts are much easier to do than edits ;) How about tentative or provisional edits--changes that perhaps show up before being approved/confirmed by owners/experts/approvers, but are rendered as unconfirmed edits, so readers know their status? (That way, new information can get to readers quickly (before confirmation), and in case the new information is wrong, readers were alerted to that possibility (its higher probability).) Daniel
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Andrei POPESCU <andreimpopescu@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-04-29 18:50 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <A0Y4h-3af-11@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #222097 |
[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw
On Mi, 29 apr 20, 12:20:37, Daniel Barclay wrote: > Andrei POPESCU wrote: > > ... > > The best thing about a wiki is that anyone can edit it[1]. Having to > > check with others first would, in my opinion, just hinder contributions. > > > > Reverts are much easier to do than edits ;) > > How about tentative or provisional edits--changes that perhaps show up > before being approved/confirmed by owners/experts/approvers, but are > rendered as unconfirmed edits, so readers know their status? The editor can of course mark/format/word such text as they see fit. Maybe there already exist conventions/tags/whatever to mark a block of text as "pending verification/confirmation/approval". Kind regards, Andrei -- http://wiki.debian.org/FAQsFromDebianUser
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-04-29 21:20 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <A10ps-4LB-13@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #222097 |
On Wed 29 Apr 2020 at 12:20:37 -0400, Daniel Barclay wrote: > Andrei POPESCU wrote: > > ... > > The best thing about a wiki is that anyone can edit it[1]. Having to > > check with others first would, in my opinion, just hinder contributions. > > > > Reverts are much easier to do than edits ;) > > How about tentative or provisional edits--changes that perhaps show up > before being approved/confirmed by owners/experts/approvers, but are > rendered as unconfirmed edits, so readers know their status? > > (That way, new information can get to readers quickly (before confirmation), > and in case the new information is wrong, readers were alerted to that > possibility (its higher probability).) How about users creating pages or altering existing ones to reflect what they consider to be in the best interests of the wiki? I'm buggered if I will await the contribution of some approver, who could, presumably, could have improved the page with or without my intervention. -- Brian
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Daniel Barclay <danielbarclay.oss@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-05-07 20:30 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <A3Trs-15h-17@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #222117 |
Brian wrote: > On Wed 29 Apr 2020 at 12:20:37 -0400, Daniel Barclay wrote: > >> Andrei POPESCU wrote: >>> ... >>> The best thing about a wiki is that anyone can edit it[1]. Having to >>> check with others first would, in my opinion, just hinder contributions. >>> >>> Reverts are much easier to do than edits ;) >> >> How about tentative or provisional edits--changes that perhaps show up >> before being approved/confirmed by owners/experts/approvers, but are >> rendered as unconfirmed edits, so readers know their status? >> >> (That way, new information can get to readers quickly (before confirmation), >> and in case the new information is wrong, readers were alerted to that >> possibility (its higher probability).) > > How about users creating pages or altering existing ones to reflect > what they consider to be in the best interests of the wiki? By itself? What one random user considers to be in the best interest of the wiki might be wrong and might be something that a regular editor/approver of the page could catch and fix or delete. Combined with what I suggested? Yes, that would be fine, but then isn't that what I just suggested? What are you counter-suggesting or objecting to? > I'm buggered > if I will await the contribution of some approver, who could, presumably, > could have improved the page with or without my intervention. What awaiting are you talking about? In my proposal, the only awaiting would be for being able to see the changed text without the special rendering/marking (indicating that it's a not-yet-vetted user-made change) rather then seeing the changed text rendered normally. Daniel
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-05-07 21:40 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <A3Uxc-1GX-7@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #222287 |
On Thu 07 May 2020 at 14:23:06 -0400, Daniel Barclay wrote: > Brian wrote: > > On Wed 29 Apr 2020 at 12:20:37 -0400, Daniel Barclay wrote: > > > > > Andrei POPESCU wrote: > > > > ... > > > > The best thing about a wiki is that anyone can edit it[1]. Having to > > > > check with others first would, in my opinion, just hinder contributions. > > > > > > > > Reverts are much easier to do than edits ;) > > > > > > How about tentative or provisional edits--changes that perhaps show up > > > before being approved/confirmed by owners/experts/approvers, but are > > > rendered as unconfirmed edits, so readers know their status? > > > > > > (That way, new information can get to readers quickly (before confirmation), > > > and in case the new information is wrong, readers were alerted to that > > > possibility (its higher probability).) > > > > How about users creating pages or altering existing ones to reflect > > what they consider to be in the best interests of the wiki? > > By itself? What one random user considers to be in the best interest of the > wiki might be wrong and might be something that a regular editor/approver of > the page could catch and fix or delete. We do not have "random" users. We have users, and they entitled to participate in any aspect of the development of Debian. > Combined with what I suggested? Yes, that would be fine, but then isn't > that what I just suggested? What are you counter-suggesting or objecting > to? Who are these *regular* editors and approvers? I would suggest that users just get stuck into the wiki if they have something to say. > > I'm buggered > > if I will await the contribution of some approver, who could, presumably, > > could have improved the page with or without my intervention. > > What awaiting are you talking about? In my proposal, the only awaiting > would be for being able to see the changed text without the special > rendering/marking (indicating that it's a not-yet-vetted user-made change) > rather then seeing the changed text rendered normally. Who is doing this vetting? -- Brian.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-04-23 20:20 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <zYOC6-5rY-7@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #221830 |
On Wed 22 Apr 2020 at 17:44:00 -0500, David Wright wrote: > On Tue 21 Apr 2020 at 20:07:55 (+0100), Brian wrote: > > On Tue 21 Apr 2020 at 11:18:14 +0100, Jonathan Dowland wrote: > > > > > On Mon, Apr 20, 2020 at 11:35:00PM -0500, David Wright wrote: > > > > I don't know what the writer of those two sentences meant by > > > > structure, but I specifically mentioned the Discussion page > > > > (≡ Wikipedia's Talk page) which I think is an important > > > > factor in improving content. > > > > > > At some point a long time ago, the Debian Wiki administrators (at the > > > time) decided to direct meta-discussions towards the debian-www@ mailing > > > list, instead of Discussion pages. I think this was a mistake, and it's > > > something I've been wanting to push back on for some time, but it hasn't > > > raised up my TODO list far enough. > > > > I do not have a TODO list, but pushing all wiki issues onto debian-www > > probably wasn't the best of ideas. It seems to me that discourse would > > be a good place to put them. > > > > At the same time, what is the point of discusssion? A user thinks a > > technical point on the wiki is wrong; they know it is wrong; they change > > it. Where's the problem? > > 1. Going from thinking to knowing. Even assuming they're well-informed, > it may be worth checking with other people running different systems > about what's wrong, and what the new text should say. If I were to conduct some rewriting of https://wiki.debian.org/xinit the last thing I would ask for is opinions on altering the External links section, the provision of other links and removal of ?. Should I go on to explain the function of the xinit and startx commands and expand on the text, I would not be likely to seek advice on the purpose or content. Those who come afterwards can deal with it in whatever way they see fit. You could see this as arrogant - but Debian is a do-ocracy. > 2. Pages often need more than just piecemeal corrections: they may > need someone with a sense of ownership to restructure them, or even > to coordinate a rewrite when they lose focus. I like this idea of "sense of ownership". -- Brian.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 3 of 10 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 … 10 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | linux.debian.user
csiph-web