Thread: Re: [pgsql-www] We need an Advocacy wiki
> ------- Original Message ------- > From: "Joshua D. Drake" <jd@commandprompt.com> > To: Dave Page <dpage@postgresql.org> > Sent: 04/08/07, 17:56:32 > Subject: Re: [pgsql-advocacy] [pgsql-www] We need an Advocacy wiki > > Yes, in fact it is. It is a complete pain in the butt in comparison to > editing a wiki. If I want a page added to the .Org I have to: > > A. Understand CVS > B. Understand HTML > C. Understand patch Rubbish. You send the text to -www. Using a wiki for a public website looks completely unprofessional and gives the impression of a small organisation withoutthe resources to do things properly. Implemented in the manner being suggested leaves us with little editorial control over what is published. I'm not so muchconcerned with deliberate vandalism but with ensuring all published content is factually correct, non-libellous, andconsistent with the projects aims and past decisions on what we should or shouldn't publish. Regards, Dave
Dave Page wrote: > Using a wiki for a public website looks completely unprofessional and gives the impression of a small organisation withoutthe resources to do things properly. Honestly I dont think that our target audience cares much. What I do feel is important is that we have some kind of editorial process to ensure that there is no content on there, that the community at large does not endorse or that is not labeled properly. This requires a group of people subscribing to the changelog RSS feed and keeping an eye on what goes in and warning this list if there is questionable content. It also requires regular spring cleaning (I would say once per quarter). regards, Lukas
Lukas Kahwe Smith wrote: > Dave Page wrote: > >> Using a wiki for a public website looks completely unprofessional and >> gives the impression of a small organisation without the resources to >> do things properly. > > Honestly I dont think that our target audience cares much. What I do Apparently we define our target audience a lot differently ;-) What group does not notice an unprofessional web presence these days? > feel is important is that we have some kind of editorial process to > ensure that there is no content on there, that the community at large > does not endorse or that is not labeled properly. This requires a group > of people subscribing to the changelog RSS feed and keeping an eye on > what goes in and warning this list if there is questionable content. It > also requires regular spring cleaning (I would say once per quarter). That method leaves it very possible for incorrect data to be up on the main site for three months, which is IMHO unacceptable. I can accept that for a community collaboration site (like the current wiki), but not for the main web presence. "Moderation" has to happen before the fact there. (that's a principle completely unrelated to if a wiki is used or not - I assume there are wikis that can deal with that workflow as well) /Magnus
Magnus Hagander wrote: > Lukas Kahwe Smith wrote: >> Dave Page wrote: >> >>> Using a wiki for a public website looks completely unprofessional and >>> gives the impression of a small organisation without the resources to >>> do things properly. >> Honestly I dont think that our target audience cares much. What I do > > Apparently we define our target audience a lot differently ;-) What > group does not notice an unprofessional web presence these days? Well my idea if an average PostgreSQL user is not one who would be turned off by the idea of a wiki in general. I also do not think that a wiki is unprofessional by definition. > That method leaves it very possible for incorrect data to be up on the > main site for three months, which is IMHO unacceptable. I can accept > that for a community collaboration site (like the current wiki), but not > for the main web presence. "Moderation" has to happen before the fact > there. (that's a principle completely unrelated to if a wiki is used or > not - I assume there are wikis that can deal with that workflow as well) Oh maybe I missed something here, but I did not realize that we are discussing replacing the main site with a wiki. I just think that the wiki is perfect when we want to involve a broad audience in the creation of the text (which may very well then we moved to techdoc or the documentation later on) or when its just for a quick one shot with a life time if a few weeks (months tops). regards, Lukas
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Dave Page wrote:
>> A. Understand CVS
>> B. Understand HTML
>> C. Understand patch
>
> Rubbish. You send the text to -www.
>
Really? O.k. I need a page where I and Berkus can dynamically manage
sponsors. Where do I send the requirements to get that done?
> Using a wiki for a public website looks completely unprofessional and gives the impression of a small organisation
withoutthe resources to do things properly.
Cough.. hardly. The tool is not what makes it unprofessional, it is the
presentation.
>
> Implemented in the manner being suggested leaves us with little editorial control over what is published. I'm not so
muchconcerned with deliberate vandalism but with ensuring all published content is factually correct, non-libellous,
andconsistent with the projects aims and past decisions on what we should or shouldn't publish.
>
I *repeat* I am not suggesting we change our web infrastructure, only
that the attitudes around it change a bit.
Joshua D. Drake
> Regards, Dave
>
- --
=== The PostgreSQL Company: Command Prompt, Inc. ===
Sales/Support: +1.503.667.4564 || 24x7/Emergency: +1.800.492.2240
Providing the most comprehensive PostgreSQL solutions since 1997
http://www.commandprompt.com/
Donate to the PostgreSQL Project: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
PostgreSQL Replication: http://www.commandprompt.com/products/
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iD8DBQFGtOwdATb/zqfZUUQRAuWGAJ9Bfrpq6Hsim2mwYvFwMKjDJR5uEQCgoNFy
uHs86YTURNUB5DUJ+KZjVOU=
=m7bw
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
On Saturday 04 August 2007 17:14, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> Dave Page wrote:
> >> A. Understand CVS
> >> B. Understand HTML
> >> C. Understand patch
> >
> > Rubbish. You send the text to -www.
>
> Really? O.k. I need a page where I and Berkus can dynamically manage
> sponsors. Where do I send the requirements to get that done?
>
He said send the text of the page, you start talking about dynamic management
and requirements... you're letting your pointy-hair colors show! :-D
--
Robert Treat
Build A Brighter LAMP :: Linux Apache {middleware} PostgreSQL
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Robert Treat wrote:
> On Saturday 04 August 2007 17:14, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
>> Dave Page wrote:
>>>> A. Understand CVS
>>>> B. Understand HTML
>>>> C. Understand patch
>>> Rubbish. You send the text to -www.
>> Really? O.k. I need a page where I and Berkus can dynamically manage
>> sponsors. Where do I send the requirements to get that done?
>>
>
> He said send the text of the page, you start talking about dynamic management
> and requirements... you're letting your pointy-hair colors show! :-D
Shhhhh ;).
Sincerely,
Joshua D. Drake
>
- --
=== The PostgreSQL Company: Command Prompt, Inc. ===
Sales/Support: +1.503.667.4564 || 24x7/Emergency: +1.800.492.2240
Providing the most comprehensive PostgreSQL solutions since 1997
http://www.commandprompt.com/
Donate to the PostgreSQL Project: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
PostgreSQL Replication: http://www.commandprompt.com/products/
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iD8DBQFGtRLVATb/zqfZUUQRAqR5AKCcr+pUR8R7i8+BtC6I/197upBnvQCfZrE6
zL6XsirHp43Vi6oJRFN6d4I=
=F/gG
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----