search

engasmaa / google-summer-of-code

Automatically exported from code.google.com/p/google-summer-of-code
0 stars 0 forks source link

Wiki section is misleading #62

Closed GoogleCodeExporter closed 9 years ago

GoogleCodeExporter commented 9 years ago 
There's a section to code.google.com labelled "Wiki", yet there's no means for 
*visitors* to 
actually edit those pages.  One of the predominant defining criteria of a wiki 
is the ability for 
visitors (whether requiring registration or not) to modify the web pages.  It's 
not just "on-line 
collaborative" editing, nor the syntax of the quick-editing interface -- there 
are several web 
interfaces that fit those criteria yet are very much not a wiki.

It might be a Wiki to Google employees since you can visit the site and edit, 
but it is not to the 
predominance of your visitors.  To visitors, it's simply "Docs".

I can understand the perceived management fear of having things be edited by 
the community 
(it's the same argument for *any* wiki/web site) that might be perceived by 
someone as being 
representative of Google.  So perhaps put a disclaimer and allow registered 
user editing.  Or 
simply don't call it a wiki and keep it private.  To (publicly) claim, however, 
that it is a wiki when 
from a visitor's perspective it certainly is not is rather misleading and 
disingenuous.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wiki for example definition that refers to 
visitors, others 
prevalent and abundant.  There are plenty of other citeable references that 
include the 3rd-party 
visitor editing aspects of a wiki.  Hopefully the point, however, has been 
shown.  At a minimum, 
it would suffice to just call it documentation.

Original issue reported on code.google.com by brl...@gmail.com on 27 Mar 2007 at 6:39

GoogleCodeExporter commented 9 years ago 
Assigning to Greg Stein, the technical lead for our Project Hosting service.

Original comment by LHospo@gmail.com on 28 Mar 2007 at 2:45

GoogleCodeExporter commented 9 years ago 
Our wikis are editable by project Owners and Members. To those people, it *is* a
wiki. "Wiki" doesn't mean "anybody who wants to edit" -- it is a description of 
a
collaborative tool.

Since the time this issue was filed, we have added commenting on wiki pages by
logged-in users. That strikes a nice balance between authoritative, non-spammy
content created by the Owners/Members, and allowing the larger audience to 
contribute.

Original comment by gstein on 24 Oct 2007 at 10:15

GoogleCodeExporter commented 9 years ago 
BTW, this issue is also reported here:
http://code.google.com/p/support/issues/detail?id=162

You may want to star that issue.

Original comment by jrobb...@gmail.com on 24 Oct 2007 at 10:36

GoogleCodeExporter commented 9 years ago 
Thanks for the linked reference!  It was rather informative to see someone else 
post a nearly identical concern 
from their different perspective.  I'm also glad to hear about the new 
enhancements, though I do feel they are 
still rather misleading and insufficient (if you are to retain the "wiki" 
section title). 

While the comments are useful in themselves, they don't really fix the 
misrepresentation 'point' being made.  
It was never (intentionally) stated that the "wiki" should allow "anybody who 
wants to edit" the pages -- the 
statement was that it didn't allow visitors, i.e. people that are not yet 
members, to even be aware of the 
process for becoming a contributor (because there isn't one, it's not being 
allowed).  There is often criteria for 
being a qualified editor on a wiki site such as registration or, as is the case 
in this instance, being a project 
member.

As a community visitor to the site, using the site -- I see the label wiki and 
instantly recognize that there 
should be some means or process that I can go through to become a contributor.  
In this instance, no such 
mechanism exists outside of becoming a Google employee, and I think that gets 
at the heart of the issue.

There's no process that allows it as, frankly, you don't want to allow the 
edits or add new members, or don't 
feel that you even *can* for whatever reason(s).  This may perhaps be specific 
to GSoC, of course, given the 
nature that the project "Owners and Members" for that project are all what are 
essentially non-visitors.

Since GSoC can't be unique in that 'authoritative' constraint on editing and 
membership, I would still suggest 
simply changing the tab to say "Documentation" or "Docs" instead of wiki and 
then there really wouldn't be 
any concern.  There is zero benefit to me as a visitor for you to call it a 
"Wiki" without a process by which I can 
become a contributor, so it's just a misleading title; people that can edit the 
"Wiki" section documents see that 
fact apparent when they go to the section regardless of the title.  The 
business process limitations are 
understanable (even if objectionable), but that doesn't mean that it has to be 
misleading.

Original comment by brl...@gmail.com on 5 Nov 2007 at 3:20