PDA

View Full Version : HOWTO pages and the Wiki



fishfork
September 7th, 2005, 02:32 AM
Greetings all,

I find the HOWTOs on this forum an invaluable resource, but keep thinking they would be more effective as Wiki pages. The problem with having them as forum threads is the thread rapidly becomes long and all the useful posts get lost among people asking questions. Then if the original poster doesn't update it regularly, all the useful information gets difficult to find.

How about this: each HOWTO has a Wiki page for the howto, which links to a forum thread for questions, and a talk page for discussing the wiki.

Any thoughts?

az
September 7th, 2005, 02:35 AM
Yes, I agree. This is most important to get done before Breezy is released.

Let's have a contest and see who can add the most uselful content to the UserDocumentation or forum pages. I am serious.

fishfork
September 7th, 2005, 02:51 AM
For an example of what I mean, look at https://wiki.ubuntu.com/MidiSoftwareSynthesisHowTo (scroll down to the 'discussion' links at the bottom).

Perhaps when 'Breezy Tips and Tricks' is set up, we could encourage people to write HOWTOs this way. (Maybe a sticky in the relevant forum?) It would really help bring the forums and the wiki closer together, and make them both more useful.

zugvogel
September 10th, 2005, 02:29 PM
I like this idea. It makes sense to make the conclusions of the forum about a subject easily accessable on one page.

ubuntu-geek
September 10th, 2005, 02:47 PM
Why do we want to have a link to dicuss on the wiki? Seems the forums should be the place for discussions..

XDevHald
September 10th, 2005, 03:05 PM
This will do some good for those that are not on the forum and registered to be able to find valueable resources.

Not a bad Idea :)

floppy
September 10th, 2005, 03:11 PM
Strickly from a newbie's point of view, I think this is a wonderful idea. Having a followup link back to the forums would've saved me a lot of time.

As a consequence, it may make the wiki a more popular reference and cut down on repeated threads.

panickedthumb
September 10th, 2005, 04:05 PM
Why do we want to have a link to dicuss on the wiki? Seems the forums should be the place for discussions..
You DID read the page right ;)

It's not discussion on the wiki, it's a link from the wiki to here for discussion.

fishfork
September 10th, 2005, 04:46 PM
Why do we want to have a link to dicuss on the wiki? Seems the forums should be the place for discussions..

Maybe I didn't explain myself very well. The idea is to keep the actual HOWTO on the wiki, but link to a thread in the forum for the discussions (and vice versa). This means the forum gets used for what it was designed for, discussion, while the wiki page is gradually updated with all the useful information from that thread.

Do you think this would discourage people from writing HOWTOs? We'd have to give them clear instructions on how to sign up to the wiki and how to use the formatting there. All this could be in a sticky in the 'Tips and Tricks' forum. And I suppose if people didn't want to do this, they could still write an old-fashioned forum howto instead.

krusbjorn
September 10th, 2005, 04:53 PM
And I suppose if people didn't want to do this, they could still write an old-fashioned forum howto instead.

Yeah, and someone else can add their how-to to the wiki. ;)

Brunellus
September 10th, 2005, 06:01 PM
Yeah, and someone else can add their how-to to the wiki. ;)
It'd be awfully nice if the wiki were a bit easier to use.

I added, a long time ago, a report on the compatibility of my wireless card. In the time since, I have forgotten my password. No problem, right, I'll just have the wiki e-mail me my account details...nope, sorry. I'm told to use Launchpad's reset password page. Since I do have a Launchpad account, I reset my password there. Launchpad lets me log in. O joy!

Now I go back to the wiki, and enter my newly-reset password and....nope, wrong password, SUCKA!

So either I'm being an idiot, or something is wrong with the wiki.

tseliot
September 10th, 2005, 06:06 PM
We'd have to give them clear instructions on how to sign up to the wiki and how to use the formatting there. All this could be in a sticky in the 'Tips and Tricks' forum. And I suppose if people didn't want to do this, they could still write an old-fashioned forum howto instead.
I would be interested to put my HOWTOs to the Wiki and I would also like to know how to use the formatting there.

Thanks

krusbjorn
September 10th, 2005, 06:08 PM
It'd be awfully nice if the wiki were a bit easier to use.

I added, a long time ago, a report on the compatibility of my wireless card. In the time since, I have forgotten my password. No problem, right, I'll just have the wiki e-mail me my account details...nope, sorry. I'm told to use Launchpad's reset password page. Since I do have a Launchpad account, I reset my password there. Launchpad lets me log in. O joy!

Now I go back to the wiki, and enter my newly-reset password and....nope, wrong password, SUCKA!

So either I'm being an idiot, or something is wrong with the wiki.

I had that problem too, until i tried my email address instead of my nickname, in the login form.

However, in the "User Preferences", it says my passwords dont match, but i only find one field to enter my password in. And, yes, i'm sure i enter the correct password.

Brunellus
September 10th, 2005, 06:52 PM
I had that problem too, until i tried my email address instead of my nickname, in the login form.

However, in the "User Preferences", it says my passwords dont match, but i only find one field to enter my password in. And, yes, i'm sure i enter the correct password.
nope, still no joy.

If I could only have my WIKI username/pass emailed to me, I'd be happy. It appears that Launchpad and the wiki are two separate entities which want me to believe that they're not.

ubuntu-geek
September 10th, 2005, 08:25 PM
OK guys I have been over this multiple times with the moderators about this issue in the past week.

Problem with having the wiki as the main storage facility for HOWTO's..

1. No integrated login information between forums/wiki ( i get 100 emails a week about this)
people are confused and they don't like mulitple username/passwords

2. The wiki is confusing for users sometimes. Lets face it the forum is alot easier to use.
3. The approuch is going to be this.

The HOWTO section will stay on the forums, when the user goes to create a howto we will provide a "howto to add the wiki with correct url etc" the user can post or not post in the wiki, if they choose not to then someone from the community can do it.

I suppose if the goal is to make the wiki the main source for everything we might as well shut down the forums and someone should have told me this a year ago so I didnt waste my time.. :)

ubuntu-geek
September 10th, 2005, 08:27 PM
You DID read the page right ;)

It's not discussion on the wiki, it's a link from the wiki to here for discussion.
Yeah I know I read it right.. it seems we are wanting to keep discussions on the wiki from what this says:

Ask questions at http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?p=336935

Discuss this page at MidiSoftwareSynthesisHowTo/talk

panickedthumb
September 10th, 2005, 08:41 PM
yeah, for this page it's a bit confusing. I think the person using it as an example just meant for the wiki howto to link back to the forums for discussion.

Sorry, I was tired when I wrote that post :)

But the wiki should never be the main source for everything. I think the idea is to have the wiki be the main source for documentation so there's not so much fragmentation. If we get a forums documentation team to cross post the howtos into the wiki, then there shouldn't be a problem and everyone can be happy :)

krusbjorn
September 10th, 2005, 08:48 PM
I can see the wiki being extremely useful for how-tos. For example, here on the forums, i bet there are at least twenty threads about getting DMA working for your CD/DVD drive. There are different tips or solutions in every single thread. A lot of threads mean a lot of posts, and a lot of posts mean a lot of half off-topic information you dont want to read when trying to enable DMA. Getting all those tips collected on one single wiki page would make enabling DMA a lot faster and easier, if you are a newbie that just has been told to enable DMA to make CD-burning faster.

ubuntu-geek
September 10th, 2005, 08:50 PM
yeah, for this page it's a bit confusing. I think the person using it as an example just meant for the wiki howto to link back to the forums for discussion.

Sorry, I was tired when I wrote that post :)

But the wiki should never be the main source for everything. I think the idea is to have the wiki be the main source for documentation so there's not so much fragmentation. If we get a forums documentation team to cross post the howtos into the wiki, then there shouldn't be a problem and everyone can be happy :)
alright who is on the forum document/wiki team? we have any takers?

krusbjorn
September 10th, 2005, 08:51 PM
alright who is on the forum document/wiki team? we have any takers?

Count me in.

ubuntu-geek
September 10th, 2005, 09:01 PM
Count me in.
PM me so I can make sure you get the proper title tag

fishfork
September 10th, 2005, 09:35 PM
it seems we are wanting to keep discussions on the wiki from what this says:

Ask questions at http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?p=336935

Discuss this page at MidiSoftwareSynthesisHowTo/talk

Yeah sorry, when I wrote that I thought that the Forum thread could be for support questions and things not yet covered in the wiki, and the Talk page could be for discussions more about the structure of the wiki page. Most pages wouldn't need a Talk page, probably.

macgyver2
September 11th, 2005, 12:17 AM
I think this is a great idea. Having the HOWTOs on the wiki makes a lot of sense...as long as they're organized. I have free time I can devote to helping out with this if more help is needed.

az
September 11th, 2005, 01:41 AM
I suppose if the goal is to make the wiki the main source for everything we might as well shut down the forums and someone should have told me this a year ago so I didnt waste my time.. :)


The wiki is for somewhat static information. The forum is for discussion. The wiki harbours information, the forums harbours people.

Neither is better than the other; *both* are needed.

XDevHald
September 17th, 2005, 09:16 PM
alright who is on the forum document/wiki team? we have any takers?
Deffinently count me in.

Thanks!

ubuntu-geek
September 17th, 2005, 09:17 PM
The wiki is for somewhat static information. The forum is for discussion. The wiki harbours information, the forums harbours people.

Neither is better than the other; *both* are needed.
Sarcasm mr azz.. Sarcasm. I think you need to relax. The comment was purley a joke notice the smiley at the end..

poofyhairguy
September 18th, 2005, 01:19 AM
Since a team will be needed, who else wants in?

fishfork
September 18th, 2005, 04:08 AM
Sure, I'd be very happy to help out with this.

Just to make sure I've understood the plan correctly:

- We encourage people to write howtos on the wiki, but it is optional
- Non-wiki howtos will be gradually transferred across by the wiki/forum team

My only worry is whether we'd be 'stealing' people's stuff by doing this. Do you think we should ask the authors of the howtos before just copying their stuff across? Or put some kind of disclaimer up?

Cheers.

Also, I'd be happy to help draft a sticky with howto-writing guidelines, if wanted

macgyver2
September 18th, 2005, 07:41 PM
My only worry is whether we'd be 'stealing' people's stuff by doing this. Do you think we should ask the authors of the howtos before just copying their stuff across? Or put some kind of disclaimer up?
Some thoughts...

As I understand the situation, yes, we'd need to ask the authors' permission. Of course, I don't envision anyone saying no, you can't put my howto on the wiki, as the members who post the howtos do so because they want to help.

I feel a disclaimer would be a good idea, too (probably included in the terms of service that a new registrant agrees to), but that wouldn't cover anyone already registered or howtos that are already in existence. I'm still not exactly sure what the relationship between these forums and the Ubuntu proper is...in other words, what exactly does the use of the term "official" indicate when used in "official Ubuntu Linux forums"? I've actually been wondering that for awhile. Anyway...my idea of a good disclaimer might be to say that anything posted on these official forums may be used on any other official Ubuntu site without explicit permission.

panickedthumb
September 18th, 2005, 09:57 PM
""official Ubuntu Linux forums""

Basically means Canonical gives us a few guidelines to follow and some outlets for things we need, and the administration here basically runs things the way they want to as long as it doesn't anger Canonical.

This may be changing soon, however.

FLeiXiuS
September 18th, 2005, 10:27 PM
""official Ubuntu Linux forums""

Basically means Canonical gives us a few guidelines to follow and some outlets for things we need, and the administration here basically runs things the way they want to as long as it doesn't anger Canonical.

This may be changing soon, however.

ROFL, I love how you do this out in the open. Yes we do have guidelines, but they've been there throughout the life of this board; and if you do ask me, the "mods" are included in the administration. So in reality your flaming your self.

panickedthumb
September 18th, 2005, 10:41 PM
What? You're totally misinterpreting what I'm saying here. What I'm saying is what I've understood from discussions of things and IRC logs. The guidelines HAVE been here throughout the time that we've been official at least. mods are included in the administration, sure. I'm not flaming anyone, I'm saying that the admins have the blessing of Canonical to run things the way they please, and Canonical will only get involved when they have to.

The "this may be changing soon" refers to the fact that Canonical may be getting more involved in the near future.

"ROFL, I love how you do this out in the open"
I love how you try to make a simple explanation of the way things work into an attack on the administration.

We have a policy about members not complaining in public about the moderators. As far as I know, that applies to moderators as well.

ubuntu-geek
September 18th, 2005, 11:24 PM
Basically means Canonical gives us a few guidelines to follow and some outlets for things we need, and the administration here basically runs things the way they want to as long as it doesn't anger Canonical.

This may be changing soon, however.

It is?..

Edit: Yes, we hope to tighten our relationship in the near future.

panickedthumb
September 18th, 2005, 11:29 PM
it is what?

ubuntu-geek
September 18th, 2005, 11:31 PM
Read my quote. I think this thread has strayed far enough off topic...

FLeiXiuS
September 19th, 2005, 06:22 AM
We have a policy about members not complaining in public about the moderators. As far as I know, that applies to moderators as well.

?

ubuntu-geek
September 19th, 2005, 02:16 PM
This thread has strayed far enough off topic.

jdodson
September 22nd, 2005, 11:24 PM
Ok.

az
September 23rd, 2005, 12:07 AM
Some thoughts...

As I understand the situation, yes, we'd need to ask the authors' permission. Of course, I don't envision anyone saying no, you can't put my howto on the wiki, as the members who post the howtos do so because they want to help.

I feel a disclaimer would be a good idea, too (probably included in the terms of service that a new registrant agrees to), but that wouldn't cover anyone already registered or howtos that are already in existence. I'm still not exactly sure what the relationship between these forums and the Ubuntu proper is...in other words, what exactly does the use of the term "official" indicate when used in "official Ubuntu Linux forums"? I've actually been wondering that for awhile. Anyway...my idea of a good disclaimer might be to say that anything posted on these official forums may be used on any other official Ubuntu site without explicit permission.
....back to the issue.

Under what licence is the content posted here?

Should we consider some of these licence options from the Creative Commons?
http://creativecommons.org/about/licenses/

Basically, all users need to agree to that licence before they can post their stuff here. Then, it is explicit what can be copied and whatnot....

23meg
September 23rd, 2005, 12:45 AM
i think CC licensing would complicate and slow things down without bringing in much benefit. the intention in doing a howto is always obvious: whoever submits a howto already does it in the spirit of helping whoever else may find the info useful. the wiki team could simply send private messages and/or email to authors to get their consent, and once that's done just reformat the howto and put it on the wiki. and anyone who doesn't want their howto to be spread outside the forum can state so at the bottom of their post from now on (this can be made sticky for a while on the forum).

by the way, count me in for the team as well.

az
September 23rd, 2005, 02:00 AM
i think CC licensing would complicate and slow things down without bringing in much benefit. the intention in doing a howto is always obvious: whoever submits a howto already does it in the spirit of helping whoever else may find the info useful. the wiki team could simply send private messages and/or email to authors to get their consent, and once that's done just reformat the howto and put it on the wiki. and anyone who doesn't want their howto to be spread outside the forum can state so at the bottom of their post from now on (this can be made sticky for a while on the forum).

by the way, count me in for the team as well.


Implementing a CC licence that says everyting here is wide open and you can copy it or improve it (pd and Share alike) does just what you describe. How would that complicate or slow things down?

Everything you would post is by default under such and such a licence... You would agree to the terms in the same way you currently agree to the code of conduct. Actually, what you suggest is based on an assumption. Implementing a CC licence would just make it black and white instead of implied.

The Attribution licence is also a good choice. Somebody would have to decide...

23meg
September 23rd, 2005, 02:20 AM
Implementing a CC licence that says everyting here is wide open and you can copy it or improve it (pd and Share alike) does just what you describe. How would that complicate or slow things down?

Everything you would post is by default under such and such a licence... You would agree to the terms in the same way you currently agree to the code of conduct. Actually, what you suggest is based on an assumption. Implementing a CC licence would just make it black and white instead of implied.

The Attribution licence is also a good choice. Somebody would have to decide...
having to decide upon a CC license for each howto post would complicate things; this is how i thought it would have to be implemented. "somebody" deciding on which license should apply to every single thing posted on the board doesn't sound very fair, or even theoretically possible to me; how about everything that's been posted so far? how can we apply a license in retrostpect? and even if licenses are to be valid from now on, everyone would have to be notified in person about this change via mail or private posts, which is again a burden.

i don't think we should tighten things this much. the reason someone writes a howto is that they've struggled enough with a technical problem to have overcome it, and now that they have, they want to let everyone know the dirty details of it so that they won't have to reinvent the wheel, not that they couldn't ever figure it out without that howto. thus the motivation behind doing a howto carries within it the neccesity of sharing, and a simple reformatting and replacing that's done by the same community that the howto is intended for shouldn't hurt anyone. it doesn't all have to be put to black and white..

az
September 23rd, 2005, 02:39 AM
"somebody" deciding on which license should apply to every single thing posted on the board doesn't sound very fair,

I completely agree! How about a poll? A vote? A discussion. How about users agreeing to a certain licence by default, but they are able to change what licence they prefer in their user preferences. Now *that* is cutting edge forum practice! Not seen anywhere else, ladies and gentlemen!



or even theoretically possible to me; how about everything that's been posted so far? how can we apply a license in retrostpect? and even if licenses are to be valid from now on, everyone would have to be notified in person about this change via mail or private posts, which is again a burden.

Again, I agree.


i don't think we should tighten things this much. the reason someone writes a howto is that they've struggled enough with a technical problem to have overcome it, and now that they have, they want to let everyone know the dirty details of it so that they won't have to reinvent the wheel, not that they couldn't ever figure it out without that howto. thus the motivation behind doing a howto carries within it the neccesity of sharing, and a simple reformatting and replacing that's done by the same community that the howto is intended for shouldn't hurt anyone. it doesn't all have to be put to black and white..

I totally agree with you. But the fact is this is not the first time this question has been asked. Two other people brought this up in this very thread.

It probably would be better to have some black and white legal protection than to just continue on and assume that everybody is okay with it.

You know, it is only recently that people started to notice that there was a problem with the documentation licences that accompanied free software? Debian had to take drastic measure to strip all non-free documentation from the distribution to not violate their social contract.

I do not think this is an issue we can easily ignore.

23meg
September 23rd, 2005, 03:06 AM
right, documentation without proper indication of ownership and rights can be trouble, but software documentation and forum howto posts are two different matters here.

documentation is what comes with a piece of software to help users come to terms with it in the way the software author has foreseen. but authors and vendors can't possibly foresee every possible problem that may arise from every possible permutation of millions of pieces of soft and hardware in use, and this is how problems occur. here howtos, forum posts, wikis and the like come in for rescue; people who use open source software make up their own workarounds and share them, and they don't necessarily have to reach back to the author, because in open source noone has to depend on the author. things have to be laid bare in the open for all to see, and they have to change rapidly, since the software itself changes rapidly (another difference from actual documentation such as manpages). and wikis are a very good tool for this, since they're simultaneously editable by multiple authors, and have good versioning structures. i use wikis intensely, and i have yet to see a wiki that enforces a CC or other kind of license to its users. neither have i seen such a forum.

another question would be (i'm thinking out loud here): is a technical documentation or technical forum talk really a creative piece of work that CC licenses (which are AFAIK mostly used in more conventionally creative areas such as art and design) would be suitable for? maybe we should be looking at documentation licenses such as the gnu free documentation license for inspiration if we must have some sort of license.

yet another: once licensed with CC, you can't possibly "un-CC" a piece of work, or change your license preference, since by the time you're making that decision, the information will already have been spread and possibly used in ways that may contradict with the new license. in short, it's not possible and not necessary to keep tabs on rapidly changing open source technical information with licensing. just check out the "index of howtos" thread to see how many initial howto posts have been edited by their authors upon corrections and suggestions in following posts.

az
September 23rd, 2005, 04:14 AM
Just a quick response...

Debianhelp.org uses the GNU FDL (freedoclicence) and lugradio forums use creative commons licencing. I am pretty sure other forums use similar licencing.

About un-licencing, good question!

Galoot
September 23rd, 2005, 04:33 AM
The problem seems simple to me. While you and I and Joe Shmoe may be perfectly fine with folks copying, reformatting and possibly even editing their HOWTOs, others might not, even despite the assumption that everyone writes HOWTOs for the greater good.

You can't use another person's work without their prior permission. You must assume it's not okay to just grab what you want for whatever purpose (the collective "you," not you specifically). Despite any open source ideals we may have, we must respect the work done by others enough to get their permission to republish it.

23megs' suggestion about PMing or e-mailing authors of prior works is perfect for already existing HOWTOs.

azz's suggestion about "users agreeing to a certain license by default, but they are able to change what licence they prefer in their user preferences" is perfect for future HOWTOs. Or we could make it a common response in any new HOWTO posts: "Would you CC/GNU FDL/whatever that wonderful HOWTO so it spreads around the net and helps folks who'll never find these forums?"

23meg
September 23rd, 2005, 04:34 AM
Debianhelp.org uses the GNU FDL

but debian itself ditched the GNU FDL recently; that was the transition you were referring to on the former page, right?. there's thousands of pages of worthy content on debianhelp (i know it's not official), and now it's under a license that debian itself is rejecting.

quoting the debianhelp.org faq:


A historical footnote: Years after the decision to license debianHELP content under the GFDL was made, the Debian project decided that the GFDL was a "non-free" license. (IMHO, some of the Debian project's objections to the GFDL are subject to how you read the GFDL, and others do not interfere with this site's goal -- to spread information and help Debian users.)

But by this time, years worth of debianHELP content was already licensed under the GFDL and it would be near-impossible to change the license of that content and fairly disastrous to eliminate that content. So we continue with the GFDL. And please remember, this site is not an official part of the Debian project and/or SPI.


see, the impossibility of changing licenses actually reduces their credibility. this is what happens when you tighten it too much and try to stick too hard to licenses and the like. they do have their uses while deploying software and documentation, but in communities they have to be taken with a pinch of salt.

az
September 23rd, 2005, 01:05 PM
Actually, this is what I am referring to:

http://www.tldp.org/ldpwn/ldpwn-2001-12-04.html


"see, the impossibility of changing licenses actually reduces their credibility."

I do not see that. They picked a licence. It is better than nothing. They chose not to change. How is this a bad thing? The nuances of those licences do not affect the fact that users who post there do not expect to be able to prevent others from using their thoughts. Anyway, the point is that they found it important to make it clear that licencing applies.


"this is what happens when you tighten it too much and try to stick too hard to licenses and the like"

So, make everythink expressedly PD, then. The purpose is clarity, not to impose tons of restrictions and fine print.


This is the debian-legal position on th GNU FDL. It has nothing to do with my point, though.

http://people.debian.org/~srivasta/Position_Statement.html

macgyver2
September 27th, 2005, 11:32 PM
Okay everyone, I'm trying to stir this up again because it's a great idea.

As for licensing, do we really need to say we're using XXX license or YYY license? Here's the first paragraph under Copyright on www.ubuntu.com/legal


The website HTML, text, images audio, video, software or other content that is made available on this website are the property of someone - the author in the case of content produced elsewhere and reproduced here with permission, or Canonical or its content suppliers. Before you use this content in some way please take care to ensure that you have the relevant rights and permissions from the copyright holder.
I feel that something like this could apply to the forums, too. It's my opinion that all we'd need to do is ask the author permission to copy the howto from the forums to the wiki and give the proper credit to the original author and probably any other contributors who added/corrected stuff throughout the thread that was then added/corrected by the original poster.

Anyway, musing...it would be nice to get this project started soon. Having a lot of howtos up for when Breezy is released would be a good thing. Of course one issue would be the howtos that are no longer maintained by the original author(s). They may be unnecessary or need to be updated due to the improvements in Breezy.

az
September 28th, 2005, 11:10 AM
Okay everyone, I'm trying to stir this up again because it's a great idea.

As for licensing, do we really need to say we're using XXX license or YYY license? Here's the first paragraph under Copyright on www.ubuntu.com/legal


I feel that something like this could apply to the forums, too. It's my opinion that all we'd need to do is ask the author permission to copy the howto from the forums to the wiki and give the proper credit to the original author and probably any other contributors who added/corrected stuff throughout the thread that was then added/corrected by the original poster.

Anyway, musing...it would be nice to get this project started soon. Having a lot of howtos up for when Breezy is released would be a good thing. Of course one issue would be the howtos that are no longer maintained by the original author(s). They may be unnecessary or need to be updated due to the improvements in Breezy.


That quote from Canonical is my argument for saying that the forums needs to have such licencing as a baseline. You aggree to post here, well, you aggree to post under such a licence. It just has to be explicitly laid out, not assumed.

stubby
September 28th, 2005, 11:39 AM
if there was a wiki documentation team i'd be more then willing to help out

mattheweast
November 12th, 2005, 01:55 AM
There is. Please see http://doc.ubuntu.com and/or https://wiki.ubuntu.com/DocumentationTeam

I've also written up some guidelines about how to post to the wiki material from the forum. See them here:

http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=81999

Many thanks for any help! The wiki needs love.

Matt

az
November 12th, 2005, 02:34 AM
I am certain that many people on these official forums will bring some love to the official wiki.

It is a spectacular way to share the knowledge we bring forth in the forums to the greater Ubuntu community. Many people who do not frequent the forums get their knowledge from wiki.ubuntu.com.

That community is what Ubuntu is all about.

thechitowncubs
November 12th, 2005, 11:41 PM
if there was a wiki documentation team i'd be more then willing to help out
you don't need to be a member of a team to contribute to a wiki

but there is a wiki team :p

https://wiki.ubuntu.com/WikiTeam