The Ubuntu Document Storage Facility Poll

[frodon]

Hi,

What do you think of the Ubuntu Document Storage Facility (UDSF) ?
http://doc.gwos.org/index.php/Main_Page

I opened this thread to get some feedback about the UDSF project, do you like the concept ? Do you find the provided informations useful ? Is it easy to browse ? Does the UDSF helped you ?

Your feedback will help us to know if we took the right direction and also it will help us to improve the site thanks to your suggestions.

So feel free to say what you dislike in this project and what to improve.

Here is a description of the purpose of the UDSF for those who don't know :
http://doc.gwos.org/index.php/Ubuntu_Document_Storage_Facility:About

Thanks

[mstlyevil]

UDSF has been a godsend as far as I am concerned. It has helped me numerous times with various projects find the right information I needed without having to google around for it.

These forums and projects like the UDSF are what make Ubuntu one of the best of the nixes out there. Thanks guys for all the hard work.

[Engnome]

Never heard of it before but it seems kinda nice...gonna check it out.

[John.Michael.Kane]

UDSF has been a godsend as far as I am concerned. It has helped me numerous times with various projects find the right information I needed without having to google around for it.

These forums and projects like the UDSF are what make Ubuntu one of the best of the nixes out there. Thanks guys for all the hard work.


Agree 100%.. this, and the wiki offer great help. though some one say the ubuntu wiki is outdated, it is still usefull.

[Imexius]

UDSF is the greatest thing to happen to ubuntu :D

[matthew]

It's easy to navigate, up to date, and useful. What more could you want?

[mattheweast]

This discussion has been rehearsed many times, but I'm going to voice my opinion yet again... A strong and well supported central documentation resource would mean a lot for bringing the Ubuntu community together - the stuff on the storage facility is great, but it would be much more positive and would bring the community together a lot more if it was pooled with the central documentation resources, for lots of reasons:

* documentation would be easier for users and those giving technical support to find
* documentation would be more authoritative as it would be in one place
* the documentation would have a stronger central contributor base
* contributing and focusing on the central Ubuntu documentation resource would bring the forums and the wider community closer to together and into contact with each other more often.

I've written more about why I think this here:

https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/sounder/2006-June/007287.html

We've discussed this at length in the past, and the reaction was not a positive one. However this may be a good time to start discussing it again, the documentation on the Ubuntu wiki will be moved into a new help site soon and will no longer be mixed with developer/community pages. It will also give us greater scope for organising and working on the presentation of the community contributed documentation.

Now might be the time that we can finally get collaboration going and make a strong central documentation resource for the whole community.

Hey, I'm an eternal optimist.

[basketcase]

Never heard of it before but it seems kinda nice...gonna check it out.


I'm with this guy...never heard of it before, but will definitely check it out!

[az]

This discussion has been rehearsed many times, but I'm going to voice my opinion yet again... A strong and well supported central documentation resource would mean a lot for bringing the Ubuntu community together - the stuff on the storage facility is great, but it would be much more positive and would bring the community together a lot more if it was pooled with the central documentation resources, for lots of reasons:

* documentation would be easier for users and those giving technical support to find
* documentation would be more authoritative as it would be in one place
* the documentation would have a stronger central contributor base
* contributing and focusing on the central Ubuntu documentation resource would bring the forums and the wider community closer to together and into contact with each other more often.

I've written more about why I think this here:

https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/sounder/2006-June/007287.html

We've discussed this at length in the past, and the reaction was not a positive one. However this may be a good time to start discussing it again, the documentation on the Ubuntu wiki will be moved into a new help site soon and will no longer be mixed with developer/community pages. It will also give us greater scope for organising and working on the presentation of the community contributed documentation.

Now might be the time that we can finally get collaboration going and make a strong central documentation resource for the whole community.

Hey, I'm an eternal optimist.

That pretty much sums up my opinion about the UDSF.

[kassetra]

I think the UDSF is well organized, up-to-date, clear, easy to use and contains all of the forum howtos that everyone can't seem to get enough of all in one simple spot.

I know that when I can't find my favorite howto here because 30 new howtos have just appeared, I go to the UDSF and *poof* there it is.

I am very very glad that the Archive team maintains such a wonderful repository of the cream of the crop howtos from the forums.

Way to go teams! :KS:KS:KS:KS:KS
Keep up the fabulous work! You all are excellent!

[briancurtin]

somehow my vote was cast for "its useless" when i clicked on "I like the idea but i wouldn't use it" (since i dont use ubuntu anymore). is the creator of this thread able to delete votes? i kind of doubt that but its worth a shot

[kassetra]

somehow my vote was cast for "its useless" when i clicked on "I like the idea but i wouldn't use it" (since i dont use ubuntu anymore). is the creator of this thread able to delete votes? i kind of doubt that but its worth a shot

I can "kinda" fix it. :)

[matthew]

This discussion has been rehearsed many times, but I'm going to voice my opinion yet again... A strong and well supported central documentation resource would mean a lot for bringing the Ubuntu community together - the stuff on the storage facility is great, but it would be much more positive and would bring the community together a lot more if it was pooled with the central documentation resources, for lots of reasons:
...
Hey, I'm an eternal optimist.I think that would be very helpful. As I recall the UDSF was created solely because there wasn't a good way to archive the forum howtos and stuff--some of which isn't meant to be a long term support resource--and it was (at the time) neither easy nor quick to get the applicable stuff on the wiki. Note: my comments are being said by someone who has made contributions more than once on the wiki and who likes the official wiki.

The trouble occurred when it wasn't completely understood that the UDSF wasn't intended to replace the wiki but was filling a felt need within the community that the wiki wasn't designed to fill--a repository for unofficial and sometimes amateurish but incredibly useful hints, tips, howtos and tricks.

The eternal optimist in me says, "Can't we all concede that there might be space in the universe for both to exist?" I have on my shelf the Oxford Dictionary of the English Language as well as the Webster's Dictionary--they are not the same in terms of scholarity or comprehensiveness, but they're each useful. I also have Al-Mourid, which is the most comprehensive English-Arabic/Arabic-English dictionary I have ever found sitting right next to a Berlitz Arabic Phrasebook. Are they equivalent? Not in the slightest, but they each serve a valuable purpose in my language efforts.

[mattheweast]

The trouble occurred when it wasn't completely understood that the UDSF wasn't intended to replace the wiki but was filling a felt need within the community that the wiki wasn't designed to fill--a repository for unofficial and sometimes amateurish but incredibly useful hints, tips, howtos and tricks.


I don't think it is true that the wiki wasn't designed to fill that need. There are a shed load of such things in the wiki, some of which are completely incomprehensible. Obviously, we'd like to clean those up, but the reality is that there will always be so much information that there will always be "amateurish" and even downright bad information in the wiki.

BUT, the *key* is to organise as much information as possible and ensure that it is presented in the best and most reliable way to the community.

I also don't think it is true that the storage wiki is any different - from what I can see it is quite professionally presented and contains plenty of reliable information.



The eternal optimist in me says, "Can't we all concede that there might be space in the universe for both to exist?"


I'm happy to concede, and indeed I agree, that there is space in the universe for both to exist. There is space for a load more separate wikis with Ubuntu documentation. We could have 10 different documentation sites. But doing so does not serve our users. It doesn't even serve ourselves, except that it is easier to start a new resource than learn to collaborate.

Now that both projects are obviously mature, I think it is a good time to realise that the Ubuntu community would benefit immensely from having a strong, authoritative, central and accepted single documentation resource. It would be an ideal way to provide a more efficient and more reliable frame of reference for the various free technical support sections in the Ubuntu community (forum, support mailing lists, irc, and so on).

Once the "collaboration barrier" is got past, working on a central resource will also help us, the people who contribute to providing the information, because working as a team is much more effective than working as separate teams. Contributing to one resource means that we don't have to reinvent the wheel, which is more effort than using the same wheel. The effort that is saved then goes into producing better documentation.

It's that barrier that I'd like to break down, I've tried before, and I'll try again.

[frodon]

I would agree with you mattheweast but there are also some advantages for the users to have different documentation ressources because they offers differents approches.
For for example the navigation concept of the UDSF is slightly different with a main page and a category principle.
In addition the content of the UDSF is open and you can just cut and paste informations to the wiki if you wish.

About collaboration your post is quite interesting but for me it seems difficult to have just one documentation ressource because the site organisation of the wiki and the UDSF is quite different and our purpose is also to propose an alternative to this organisation which is in a good spirit for the users i think.

Let's see what think the others.

[mattheweast]

About collaboration your post is quite interesting but for me it seems difficult to have just one documentation ressource because the site organisation of the wiki and the UDSF is quite different and our purpose is also to propose an alternative to this organisation which is in a good spirit for the users i think.

Nah, it seems to me that the aim of both sites is to provide the best and most intuitive organisation, so that the reader can find the right answer as quickly as possible. This is a question that all help resources need to address. There is no right answer, and it seems to me that the work on organisation of the UDSF towards organisation has been quite interesting - this is work and discussion that would have been equally valid on a central documentation resource. Hopefully we can work together on that too, and get as close to the right answer as possible.



Let's see what think the others.
You bet.

[mips]

I believe the effort should rather be spend on updating the wiki & making it a #1 documentation source.

Ever seen the debian or gentoo documentation, beautiful !!

But I suppose it is a linux kinda thing where we all do our own thing...

[ubuntu-geek]

Contribute were you want. There will never be a #1 place for anything, if there was we would be living in a dull and boring society.. It's as simple as that.

[kassetra]

I think that users that are used to the forums and used to the howtos here will find immense value in the UDSF.

The official wiki doesn't always fit those exact needs and that's fine, the UDSF doesn't always fit everyone either. I honestly think that people should really contribute where they want to and not be tied into only one way of doing things. That would make for a stagnant, unhealthy, unhappy community, as evidenced by the fact that both the forums and the mailing-lists contain different types of people - and not much crossover.

Serving the users is providing them with the options that best fit their needs, regardless of the fact that it takes twenty forums, thirty wikis, and a hundred books.

[mattheweast]

The official wiki doesn't always fit those exact needs and that's fine, the UDSF doesn't always fit everyone either.
This is exactly my point. We can have a single resource that meets everybody's needs, if we collaborate. The single only reason that these two resources don't already do so is that communities have been working on them separately from each other.

Not only would collaboration solve that, but communities would be drawn together, technical support will improve, we can share ideas about the best way of solving problems, and the Ubuntu free support community will be unrivalled. That is the power of collaboration.



Serving the users is providing them with the options that best fit their needs, regardless of the fact that it takes twenty forums, thirty wikis, and a hundred books.
That isn't serving the users. If we were to make a user choose between 20 forums, thirty wikis, and a hundred books, we would have done him or her a massive disservice, simply because there is no basis on which the user can make an easy choice between them. They can either read all of them, or make a blind choice.

Giving users choice between different types of support (forums, mailing lists, live chat) is an extremely positive thing, because the user can identify which type of support works best for their type of problem, or their personality. Giving them a choice between resources which have the same aims is not positive.

Let's just open our eyes to the potential that collaboration has for the Ubuntu free support community!

Matt

[KingBahamut]

My point exactly Kassetra.

Centralized documentation, Official such documentation is something quite aggreeable. However in the world in which we live there are things outside what is offiicial and what is not. As such creating one gigantic central resource for all documentation of everything is if anything, a belief of falacy. There is no encyclopedia that exists that has everything about everything in it, nor is there such a reference material that every one person says is THE source for ALL documentation on a given subject. If such a thing existed, we would not have libraries or compendiums of information to ingest daily. Nor would there be a variety of places to collect such information.

It is by the very nature of nature itself to include variance.

That be said, I never stated that the UDSF is , was, or will ever be a valid replacement for official documentation, merely an alternative for and in which users can use if they choose to. They have the right to choose not to. I support and have been supportive of the movements of the Official team.

I believe that the UDSF is a valid source of such documentation, it blossomed from its functionality the UGA (http://gaming.gwos.org) a central communal source for gaming documenation and discussion. While not the definitive source for such documentation, it is something that users enjoy.

Think Symbosis my friends, its a lot easier, less stressful, and doesnt near involve the same level of resentment.

[kassetra]

This is exactly my point. We can have a single resource that meets everybody's needs, if we collaborate. The single only reason that these two resources don't already do so is that communities have been working on them separately from each other.

Not only would collaboration solve that, but communities would be drawn together, technical support will improve, we can share ideas about the best way of solving problems, and the Ubuntu free support community will be unrivalled. That is the power of collaboration.
That isn't serving the users. If we were to make a user choose between 20 forums, thirty wikis, and a hundred books, we would have done him or her a massive disservice, simply because there is no basis on which the user can make an easy choice between them. They can either read all of them, or make a blind choice.

Giving users choice between different types of support (forums, mailing lists, live chat) is an extremely positive thing, because the user can identify which type of support works best for their type of problem, or their personality. Giving them a choice between resources which have the same aims is not positive. So there should only be one linux distribution as well?



Let's just open our eyes to the potential that collaboration has for the Ubuntu free support community! Matt
Collaboration is fine. I simply feel the community should be able to contribute where it wants without having someone dictate to them where and how they should be contributing.

The UDSF is simply an archive of the forums. It uses a wiki for easy formatting. I should perhaps suggest another format so as to get you to cease attacking it as a waste of resources.

I'm really disappointed that you continue to push one-document-to-fit-them-all style of ideas. I had hoped you would see the benefits of a diverse approach to serving people.

I have no further comment on this matter.

[helpme]

1. So that nobody gets a wrong impression. I use both resources and I enjoy them immensly. I'd really like to thank everyone who contributed to either of them.

2. I don't think a philosophical discussion about the merits of choice and variety will be very fruitfull.

From reading this discussion here, I get the impression that the real, and imho only relavant question here, is if having two places for documentation does add anything for the users.

To state this question from an other perspective, could the great work of the people contributing to the UDSF be done as good and effective within the framework of the central documentation facility?
If the answer is yes, I do think merging them would be a good idea, if the answer is no, then by all means, keep the UDSF seperate.

[mips]

Contribute were you want. There will never be a #1 place for anything, if there was we would be living in a dull and boring society.. It's as simple as that.

I will. Maybe not but it's something we could strive towards. If you compare ubuntu's documentation to that of some other distro's you find ubuntu severely lacking. I don't see how it could be boring though, less frustrating maybe.

Just an observation from another egit...

Is the USDF copyrighted, don't see how it can be but need to ask ? If not then we can add it to the wiki.

[matthew]

Is the USDF copyrighted, don't see how it can be but need to ask ? If not then we can add it to the wiki.It is not, and porting the info there over to the wiki would be wonderful. If someone is interested in doing so, please do!

[mips]

It is not, and porting the info there over to the wiki would be wonderful. If someone is interested in doing so, please do!

](*,) lol, that's what gets me. Lot's of people would like to see the info there so why should we duplicate efforts. Why can it simply not go there in the first place I ask you with tears in my eyes.

I honestly believe this is a political/power trip thing but then lots will disagree with me, especially forum staff. Yes the work is appreciated but it could be put to better use in the wiki.

Asbestos suite on...

[LaserJock]

It is not, and porting the info there over to the wiki would be wonderful. If someone is interested in doing so, please do!

The documentation team has discussed this very thing. I think they would rather work in a spirit of collaboration though. I'm a documentation team member but I don't work a whole lot with the wiki docs and I haven't had a chance to track the UDSF very much (I looked through it at when it first started and I just did a quick run through yesterday). I think it is definately come a long way. Great work there!

I'll share my experience and a few thoughts. I started out as a hard core forums user (coming from the Gentoo forums). I loved forums and had never even heard of a wiki. But I came to a point where it was becoming increasingly hard to find good, reliable documentation (HOWTO section was really handy, but the threads seem to quickly get mired in tons of irrelevent posts). So someone mentioned the Ubuntu wiki and I found it had pretty much the same type of cool info as the HOWTO forums but in a more "lets create a useful doc out of this" way.

So I'm looking at this debate and I'm really trying to think of what would be most helpful for users and I can't help but think that having as much documentation as possible in one location is a definate winner. For one, you only have to go to one place (and people wanting to help people only have to remember 1 URL) to get documenation. Plus if the whole community gathers around one place then you have much less duplication of work and a lot more creativity, IMO. You can pretty much do whatever you want with the Ubuntu wiki so I don't see why it would be boring or hamper creativity. We have all kinds of crazy stuff on there and it would be wonderful to see more people wanting to contribute to making the wiki docs better and more reliable.


Collaboration is fine. I simply feel the community should be able to contribute where it wants without having someone dictate to them where and how they should be contributing.

I'd like to just say that the doc team is a great place for people to get involved without being dictated to. I'm sort of an weirdo in the doc team because I'm not really much of a writer (I'm a chemist by training so you can imagine how creative I am ;-) ) but they let me bring out my opinion and sometimes I get shot down (although they always value my opinion) and sometimes they are like "cool idea, lets do it". The doc team is literally begging for input as to the best way to serve the Ubuntu user community. If you think the wiki stinks, IMHO the best way to change it is to get involved and do something about it, not let it's rotting corpse lay around for users to fall into while you go and try to do something else. That's what I did (not so much with the wiki, but in Ubuntu in general) and I've been amazed at how open and accepting the teams have been.

As far as the USDF goes, I think it is a cool idea but I really see it as a stepping stone rather then an end point. I think the danger is that people use the forums a lot will only see the USDF as the sole source of documentation and I think that is a real shame since there is a lot more out there. Is there some sort of technological barrier that keeps the USDF team from putting the info on the wiki? I'm hoping we can get a GUI wiki editor soon if that helps any. I think the wiki team is probably more than happy to help copy content from the USDF to the Ubuntu wiki but it would really help if USDF people were involved since they obviously have a better grasp of the USDF material.

Anyway, enough from me. I'm just a long-winded Ubuntu lover.

-LaserJock

[KingBahamut]

LJ, thats clearly not the case in your last statement. I have my Doc Writers more than reference in numerous cases, the Official Doc itself. Rather than just copy the doc outright it would be plainly easier just to crosslink back to the Offiicial itself. Saves us times and energy, and creates an existing link between the two resources.

[LaserJock]

I guess my question then would be why not have it be the same resource, why should users have to bounce back and forth? I know I would find it confusing, but maybe it's just me. I'm not exactly sure what you mean by offical either. The wiki?

[KingBahamut]

1. No.
2. Yes.

[LaserJock]

ok. Last question, I think. Is there a reason to not use the Ubuntu wiki? Lots of people use it all the time, I just wonder why the forums seem to avoid it. Maybe that is a mistaken idea, please correct me if I'm wrong. It just seems a little weird to me to have to remember 2 places to go to get essentially the same type of material. I'll stop pestering you guys now :) and let you get back to work since I know it is a valuable service to the Ubuntu community.

-LaserJock

[aysiu]

Choice is a good thing.

But... the choices should be distinct.

There's no point in having two of the same thing (or similar things).

In my opinion, there should be at least two main sources of documentation--one targeted toward new users trying to migrate to Ubuntu, one targeted at people who have already installed Ubuntu (tweaking, post-install configuration).

Is it a control/power issue? Sure. The Wiki is a mess. I love the documentation on it, but finding stuff is a pain. The documentation storage facility is neatly organized and pleasing to the eye. I think the Wiki is a good reference for stuff if you know the page you're looking for. The documentation storage facility is good for exploring.

I have my own documentation site on Psychocats, and it's my baby. I like having control over it. Does that make me an awful person? I don't know. Am I confusing new users? I don't know. As long as each site has its own purpose, there's nothing wrong with having more than one site.

[KingBahamut]

Any semantics behind the forums not using the Official wiki is based on opinion. As habit arives I personallly try to reference both in all or better cases. Seems thats user opinion over the desireabilyt of Moin vs Mediawiki, much of the arguments I hear are centered around that fact. Perhaps something to explore?

[ubuntu-geek]

ok. Last question, I think. Is there a reason to not use the Ubuntu wiki? Lots of people use it all the time, I just wonder why the forums seem to avoid it. Maybe that is a mistaken idea, please correct me if I'm wrong. It just seems a little weird to me to have to remember 2 places to go to get essentially the same type of material. I'll stop pestering you guys now :) and let you get back to work since I know it is a valuable service to the Ubuntu community.

-LaserJock Speaking for myself I never use either wiki. But if I had to guess why people on the forums use KB's wiki more then the official wiki is because he and his team is here promoting it and providing users with links to the content.

If the doc team was here offering support and providing links to their content I am sure it would get just as much chatter.. Its a two way street, we can put links to the official wiki and content all day long but what drives the end user to explore are direct links to issues they may have.

Just my 2 cents and opinion.

[LaserJock]

Choice is a good thing.

But... the choices should be distinct.

There's no point in having two of the same thing (or similar things).

In my opinion, there should be at least two main sources of documentation--one targeted toward new users trying to migrate to Ubuntu, one targeted at people who have already installed Ubuntu (tweaking, post-install configuration).

Is it a control/power issue? Sure. The Wiki is a mess. I love the documentation on it, but finding stuff is a pain. The documentation storage facility is neatly organized and pleasing to the eye. I think the Wiki is a good reference for stuff if you know the page you're looking for. The documentation storage facility is good for exploring.

I have my own documentation site on Psychocats, and it's my baby. I like having control over it. Does that make me an awful person? I don't know. Am I confusing new users? I don't know. As long as each site has its own purpose, there's nothing wrong with having more than one site.

The wiki team is really working hard to clean up the wiki. I agree (and so does the wiki team) that the wiki is a mess. But it takes hard work to cliean up such a large amount of documentation. The user documenation part of the wiki (CatergoryDocumenation for the moin people) is going to be transfered to help.ubuntu.com while keeping links to wiki.ubuntu.com intact. Hopefully that will make it possible for better searching and organization (the shipped documenation is already there) without having to worry about development cruft :-) . I agree that the UDSF is better looking (although the sheer number of wiki pages on the Ubuntu wiki makes it difficult to just "browse") and the wiki team is certainly up for suggestions to improve navigation and usability. The cool part about the Ubuntu wiki is it "owned" by the community so you tend to have lest "control" wars. But I don't have my own doc site so I like being able to mess around in other people's docs ;-) .

[KingBahamut]

But I don't have my own doc site so I like being able to mess around in other people's docs

mess around with ours all you like LJ. =)

"Your water will mingle with our water" -- Stilgar.

[LaserJock]

Speaking for myself I never use either wiki. But if I had to guess why people on the forums use KB's wiki more then the official wiki is because he and his team is here promoting it and providing users with links to the content.

If the doc team was here offering support and providing links to their content I am sure it would get just as much chatter.. Its a two way street, we can put links to the official wiki and content all day long but what drives the end user to explore are direct links to issues they may have.

Just my 2 cents and opinion.

Good point. One of my personal goals for Edgy is to do just that. It takes a lot of time, which is something I don't have a lot of these days, but I really do think it is a worthwhile effort.

[LaserJock]

Any semantics behind the forums not using the Official wiki is based on opinion. As habit arives I personallly try to reference both in all or better cases. Seems thats user opinion over the desireabilyt of Moin vs Mediawiki, much of the arguments I hear are centered around that fact. Perhaps something to explore?

We have internal debates (probably can be seen on the ubuntu-docs mailing list every once in a while) over Moin vs. Mediawiki . There seem to be advantages and disadvantages for both. I'm not a wiki expert so I usually defer to the more knowledgeable, but Moint 1.5 seems pretty cool. I like the ida of the Mediawiki /talk pages though.

[ubuntu-geek]

Good point. One of my personal goals for Edgy is to do just that. It takes a lot of time, which is something I don't have a lot of these days, but I really do think it is a worthwhile effort.
And maybe more people will follow suit and do the same. It does take time, however I bet there are 10-20 people out there in global ubuntu community who would be on a team to do just that..

[ubuntu-geek]

Going off on a different subject that maybe a doc team member an answer; Just curious has anyone ever done a poll or survey on ubuntu users on what they dislike or like about the official wiki? or what can be improved from a end user perspective?

[mattheweast]

Going off on a different subject that maybe a doc team member an answer; Just curious has anyone ever done a poll or survey on ubuntu users on what they dislike or like about the official wiki? or what can be improved from a end user perspective?

I don't think we have.

But the problems are so painfully obvious that we just started with the worst ones. The wiki documentation is moving to a separate site where it will be alongside the system documentation, as LJ mentioned, once it is there many serious problems will be solved. Then we can crack on with solving some of the medium ones.

Matt

[aysiu]

I'm intrigued by your suggestion, ubuntu-geek, but it would need the right poll options. Any proposals? I would propose that at least:

1. It looks ugly
2. It's not easy to explore/navigate

[LaserJock]

Ok, since I seem to be in the posting mood ;-) I might not be the best one to ask but I don't believe a survey of that type has been done, at least I haven't seen one. I think the diffuculty lies in the idea that it is really hard to make a good survey that really captures a true sampling of the Ubuntu user population. If we put a poll on the forums we will get only forum users, if we put the poll on fridge.ubuntu.com we would probably get more devs and long time users. I'm guessing that the answer would be to have a professional pollster do a survey but that costs a lot. I'd personally love to see one done though since I'm always hearing "The user wants XYZ" when in fact that is just one person's impression of what the typical user is.

Anyway, I'm not sure if that answer's your question, but I think it is a great point.

[aysiu]

You're right, LaserJock, but at least if it's posted here, you'll know what forum users think about how the Wiki could be improved. That's a good place to start.

[mattheweast]

I'm intrigued by your suggestion, ubuntu-geek, but it would need the right poll options. Any proposals? I would propose that at least:

1. It looks ugly
2. It's not easy to explore/navigate

Asking for feedback generally would probably be more effective than a poll. We can do it cross-community, and we don't need to limit our options as to what people might say.

It's a good idea, definitely.

[ubuntu-geek]

And maybe more people will follow suit and do the same. It does take time, however I bet there are 10-20 people out there in global ubuntu community who would be on a team to do just that..
No comments on this?

[az]

Speaking for myself I never use either wiki. But if I had to guess why people on the forums use KB's wiki more then the official wiki is because he and his team is here promoting it and providing users with links to the content. .

I only typically use the tech-support part of the forums and I can say that I see more people providing links to the official wiki than the UDSF. So I don't really see much more promotion of one project over the other.

[matthew]

I'm intrigued by your suggestion, ubuntu-geek, but it would need the right poll options. Any proposals? I would propose that at least:

1. It looks ugly
2. It's not easy to explore/navigate3. Figuring out how to contribute is difficult for a newcomer.
4. The style requirements for proper submissions are detailed and take a lot of time for a newcomer to learn so it isn't a site that is easy to make a quick contribution to.

Note: these two pages are going a long way to alleviating #3, but they will also illustrate #4 for me. They are also linked at the top of the home page of the wiki and that is a great idea. It's a lot easier to get started now than it was when I first contributed to the wiki. (Admission: I haven't contributed a lot...just a few simple pages and occasional edit.)

https://wiki.ubuntu.com/WikiGuide
https://wiki.ubuntu.com/HelpOnEditing

[az]

Going off on a different subject that maybe a doc team member an answer; Just curious has anyone ever done a poll or survey on ubuntu users on what they dislike or like about the official wiki? or what can be improved from a end user perspective?

This topic has been addressed a few times.

https://wiki.ubuntu.com/BetterWikiDocs
https://wiki.ubuntu.com/BetterWikiDocs/talk

[mips]

No comments on this?

Will need to start a hunt for volunteers or people with experience that could also test things out.

I'll leave it at that before I get another pm ;)

Edit: By that I mean someone else besides myself hunting volunteers etc, not sticking my head in the hornets nest again.

[ubuntu-geek]

Will need to start a hunt for volunteers or people with experience that could also test things out.

I'll leave it at that before I get another pm ;)
Cool..

[az]

Cool..
I think any effort like this can be filled with volunteers in a matter of a few hours. Especially if there is a designated thread started which describes it and it is part of a forum global anouncement for a little while...... Hint hint...

[manicka]

My biggest criticism of the wiki is the judgements made about which types of how-tos make their way to the main indexes. Only those how-tos/tips which are deemed professional enough seem to make it there, leaving the rest in a disorganised ether.

At the UDSF, any how-to that recieves positive feedback from forum users gets a run and is included and indexed. As an organised archive of the forum, there is no decision about what is or isn't acceptable by maintainers - that decision is made by the forum community with their positive feedback to other users contributions. By design a wiki can't really do that as effectively as a forum.

Anyway, I try make a habit of recommending solutions from all the main sources starting with the links in my sig. All these efforts make Ubuntu a what it is today and provide their own strengths and weaknesses.

In the long it should always be about the user and providing the best choices. If that means different projects grow and become useful for different reasons, then so be it.

[JimmyJazz]

would it be possible to get pages from it in DocBook form?

[KingBahamut]

yes JimmyJazz, we could do that.

[JimmyJazz]

yes JimmyJazz, we could do that.

Excellent that would be great!

[Mathias-K]

I'm kinda tired, so maybe I'm missing some of the details.

Why not put it all together in the official wiki? I really like the "categories" view of the UDSF. If the Ubuntu Wiki had it like that and all the content was collected, it would be very nice.

Choice is good, but having 2-3-4 different places for people to write up their hardware compatibility experiences is not. Three half-empty compatibility lists are worth nothing compared to one where you are almost guarantied to find the hardware piece you are thinking about buying :)

[JimmyJazz]

yes JimmyJazz, we could do that.

How would I get hold of those? Does the wiki system automatically generate them?

[Jucato]

Voted for "good idea but needs improvement".

I personally haven't used UDSF extensively, but from time to time I take a peek at what's available and I'm very happy about it.

I've always thought that the Ubuntu wiki contained documentation that were, more or less, tried and tested or have been stamped with the approval of some of the "more knowledgeable" people as being safe. The fact that the domain name itself is .ubuntu.com gives the impression that it's sort of the official documentation, from installation, to upgrading, to installing software, and to enabling restricted formats. It's like if the question asked was regarding how to do things the official way, or some technical questions (like RootSudo), the Ubuntu wiki is the place to go.

On the other hand, I've always seen the UDSF as sort of the "unofficial" documentation, containing tips and tricks, howtos, and "hacks" written or taken from the forums. In my mind, viewing the documentation in UDSF always has the label "Warning: try at your own risk". Of course, the success stories of those who used the documentation there is enough to give you an assurance.

I'm confused about the wiki, though. Right now, the wiki also contains not just the documentation but also artworks, release schedules, development plans, and even individual Ubuntu user projects. Are these really part of the Documentation?

[Arktis]

I've come across it three or four times just by chance, but never really used it. I think it's wonderful, and the poll needs another option. Option: "Great, but never really used it." as opposed to "won't use it" which wouldn't be true in my case. I may end up using it one of these days, but for now... nah. Ubuntu just keeps getting easier and easier, you know?

[LaserJock]

I'm confused about the wiki, though. Right now, the wiki also contains not just the documentation but also artworks, release schedules, development plans, and even individual Ubuntu user projects. Are these really part of the Documentation?

Yeah, lots of people are confused about that. That's why the doc team is moving the documentation wiki pages to help.ubuntu.com with the other help documentation that is installed with Ubuntu. That way we can keep wiki.ubuntu.com for development and have a place were the documentation can live. We will put redirects where the old pages were so that we don't break peoples links. The new wiki will still be open to editing and we hope that it will allow us to structure it better.

-LaserJock

[Jucato]

Yeah, lots of people are confused about that. That's why the doc team is moving the documentation wiki pages to help.ubuntu.com with the other help documentation that is installed with Ubuntu. That way we can keep wiki.ubuntu.com for development and have a place were the documentation can live. We will put redirects where the old pages were so that we don't break peoples links. The new wiki will still be open to editing and we hope that it will allow us to structure it better.

-LaserJock

That's great! However, the webpage will still be help.ubuntu.com, reinforcing my point that people will see this as THE official documentation, sort of like an online User's Manual, while the UDSF would look like a community (in the sense of not being official) collection of HOWTO's and Tips.

Well, I hope that you guys at the doc-team and the UDSF will be able to amicably resolve this things. I'm sure that people will eventually get used to whatever is the final decision (whether they like it or not :D).

[LaserJock]

That's great! However, the webpage will still be help.ubuntu.com, reinforcing my point that people will see this as THE official documentation, sort of like an online User's Manual, while the UDSF would look like a community (in the sense of not being official) collection of HOWTO's and Tips.

Well, I hope that you guys at the doc-team and the UDSF will be able to amicably resolve this things. I'm sure that people will eventually get used to whatever is the final decision (whether they like it or not :D).

Well, that is why Matthew East doesn't like the term "offical" very much. The doc team is made up of community members. I don't think there is a single person paid to work on Ubuntu documentation. We just volunteer time. Anybody can contribute to the wiki and anybody can contribute to the "offical" documentation that is shipped (what you see at helpl.ubuntu.com) many people do. I wrote the Ubuntu Packaging Guide and I get typo reports and new content from people all the time. Just send an email to the doc team mailing list or catch me on IRC, simple as that.

-LaserJock

[KiwiNZ]

I prefer the UDSF. Its easier to migrate through and to find what I want. My personal view of the official Wiki is that it is a dogs breakfast.

[Jucato]

Of course, I didn't mean that the documentation on the wiki is not community-made/driven. I just meant that the UDSF content mostly comes from the people in these forums. Of course, both are made by the community.

As for the "official" branding, we can't help it. People will always presume, unless explicitly informed, that anything on .ubuntu.com has, in one way or another, gained the "official" stamp, either from the Ubuntu devs or from Canonical. Heck, some people even (wrongly) think that this forum is run/administered by Canonical (the footnote at the bottom of the forum adds to the confusion).

Well, anyway, good luck on how you resolve this. I really hope you do. I'd love to see the Ubuntu documentation get improved. (especially the wiki ones. :D)

[frodon]

wow, i read all the post !!

First i'd like to say as azz said it that i disagree when someone says that there's more UDSF links in the forum than wiki links, i myself really often give links to the wiki and i'm glad to do it.
I really don't see any problem to have 2 big documentation ressources, because we can each other transfert some pages to one wiki to another and with some good perl/ruby or python scripts it can be done really easyly, or crosslinking would be a painless solution too.
I also disagree that the wiki and the UDSF would contain the same documentation, for the moment it's not the case, i know that the wiki is changing but it's too early to say that the 2 ressources would have the same content in my opinion.

Also for sure if a doc-team member ask me to give him the links to the good how-to's/guides on a topic i will gladly help him to find them, so i think collaboration is possible but i will not agree to transfert the UDSF in the wiki as to make a single doc ressource because i think the 2 ressources have their interests and must exist.

The ubunru-geek's idea seems really good, if you could create a forum team to promote the wiki and maintain the dialogue with the UDSF, that would be great and we would all take advantages of that.

[matthew]

I thought I would interject some interesting data. The Gentoo community is known to have some of the very best resources around--their forums, their main documentation, and even an unofficial wiki...it seems to be valuable in that community as well to have more than one way to store information.

Forums
http://forums.gentoo.org/

Official Documentation
http://www.gentoo.org/doc/en/index.xml

Unofficial Wiki
http://gentoo-wiki.com/Main_Page

I first discovered the last resource here: http://linkfilter.net/?id=113743

[mattheweast]

I thought I would interject some interesting data. The Gentoo community is known to have some of the very best resources around
[...]
Official Documentation
http://www.gentoo.org/doc/en/index.xml

Unofficial Wiki
http://gentoo-wiki.com/Main_Page
[...]


Few points on this.

1. Yeah - the gentoo documentation is the best around. But they have a wholly different userbase, and gentoo users will generally be more capable of finding the right documentation, it's what being a gentoo user is about :) We need to make finding documentation easier for Ubuntu users and community members.
2. Even if the gentoo documentation is great, that's not to say they do everything right.
3. In any case, you've pointed out *one* community based gentoo documentation site, the wiki. I'm not aware of groups setting up separate wikis with the same aim (although I'm not particularly in touch with the gentoo community anymore).

I've written a blog post about why I think that a single documentation resource is the way forward and the next step for the Ubuntu community, in general because I felt that I've been chipping in bits and pieces to various threads and have never written everything I think down in one place. It's here: http://mdke.org/blog/FragmentedDocumentation.html



So there should only be one linux distribution as well?
[...]
I'm really disappointed that you continue to push one-document-to-fit-them-all style of ideas. I had hoped you would see the benefits of a diverse approach to serving people.

I certainly don't think that there should only be one linux distribution. Different distributions are justified when they have different aims or do different things. Gentoo for control, Ubuntu for a kickass desktop, Kubuntu for KDE lovers, debian for stability and freedom, Mepis for out of the box multimedia. However where distributions aim at the same thing, they should merge, and pool their resources, definitely. That's part of the reason you've seen a lot of Ubuntu derivatives, people know that they don't need to reinvent the wheel all the time. In the case of the Storage facility and the Ubuntu wiki, they've got the same aim - community contribution, collection of information for Ubuntu users, and the best presentation possible. Even if they didn't have the same approach to serving people (which I think they do), I'd still think that they can coexist in the same place, for all the reasons I've given - the potential of doing so is just so exciting that it outweighs any possible advantages in keeping things separate.


I prefer the UDSF. Its easier to migrate through and to find what I want. My personal view of the official Wiki is that it is a dogs breakfast.
That's the point - the good ideas that have been going into the UDSF about organisation and structure and the good ideas [1] and [2] that have been going into the wiki about the same subject could have combined to form one kickass resource, which everybody loves. And *everyone* could have pooled their ideas.

[1] https://wiki.ubuntu.com/WikiCleanupProposal
[2] https://wiki.ubuntu.com/BetterWikiDocs

[KiwiNZ]

I believe that Canonical / Ubuntu need to concentrate on producing the best OS they can. Devote their attention to that development and bug resolution and leave support etc including documentation to the independent groups like UDSF and independent forums like Ubuntuforums.

This in my humble opinion keeps it more community and gets away from the quasi corporate bureaucracy that would occur if it were all assimilated into one place.

[mattheweast]

This in my humble opinion keeps it more community and gets away from the quasi corporate bureaucracy that would occur if it were all assimilated into one place.
I hesitate before posting something that has already been written on this thread, but on the evidence of this post it is worth repeating - the documentation for Ubuntu is WHOLLY community generated, both the system documentation and wiki documentation is completely written by volunteers such as you and me. There is no bureaucracy involved. All of this is about how to harness the power of the community in the best way possible, and we should be using the words "collaboration" and not "independent".

That said, Ubuntu development is also about the same thing. Equally, good documentation is an integral part of a good operating system. The Ubuntu success model is based on a strong community, and the same will be true of documentation.

[KiwiNZ]

and we should be using the words "collaboration" and not "independent".

Why?

Is there something wrong with independent?

[mattheweast]

Is there something wrong with independent?
Not per se no. But the message I'm trying to promote here is that collaboration works. You've seen it in the community-driven development model that Ubuntu has, and you would be able to see it in the documentation too. Working together is a very powerful thing. It's hard to achieve in FOSS, but when it happens, it will move mountains.

But my previous post was simply to reassure you that there is no "corporate" aspect to any Ubuntu documentation, it's all about community.

[frodon]

I guess that the "word" independant have several connotations depending on our different feelings, KiwiNZ mean by independant "not connonical/ubuntu dependant" and i think MatthewEast understood independant as "non collaborative".

[KiwiNZ]

I guess that the "word" independant have several connotations depending on our different feelings, KiwiNZ mean by independant "not connonical/ubuntu dependant" and i think MatthewEast understood independant as "non collaborative".

Yes.

The reading I have done of late alas tells me that the intentions are much much different.

[mattheweast]

The reading I have done of late alas tells me that the intentions are much much different.
Would you explain what you mean?

[KiwiNZ]

Would you explain what you mean?

No not at this time and not here ,I do not wish to hijack the thread.

Now back to the original subject

[manicka]

I'd still think that they can coexist in the same place, for all the reasons I've given -

and just how would a setup like that work.?

Are you suggesting that there be two seperate indexes on the offical wiki or a merge of both indexes. I can't see a merge working for the simple reason that there is a difference of opinion about what deserves to be placed in a higher order index.

We have stuff in the UDSF indexes that just wouldn't make it into the higher levels on the current wiki indexes. The decision to place it in a main index on the UDSF is based mainly on community feedback in the forums as to the relevant merits of the how-to. Quite simply, good feedback means it's in, bad reviews it's out, or put on hold until the bugs are ironed out in the thread. The doc/wiki team can't replicate that sort of community feedback or decision making and is a limitation of a wiki only approach.

I guess I'm asking... who would make those sorts of decisions? Until the wiki can replicate a system of indexing based on a Forum user feedback, the proposal is a waste of time.

[Jucato]

The decision to place it in a main index on the UDSF is based mainly on community feedback in the forums as to the relevant merits of the how-to. Quite simply, good feedback means it's in, bad reviews it's out, or put on hold until the bugs are ironed out in the thread. The doc/wiki team can't replicate that sort of community feedback or decision making and is a limitation of a wiki only approach.

I guess I'm asking... who would make those sorts of decisions?

The doc-team of course. Which would give those articles/howto's a sort of "official" stamp of approval, which people would/could presume to be an endorsment from Ubuntu devs and/or Canonical. Whether that effect is intentional or not, it can't be helped.

[mattheweast]

Are you suggesting that there be two seperate indexes on the offical wiki or a merge of both indexes.
There are lots of potential approaches to doing indexes. Where more than one is valid, I don't see any problems with having more than one. An obvious example would be that an index of *categories* of documents vs an index of all the useful pages on the wiki. In the case of the current approach to organisation on the UDSF and the Ubuntu wiki, it seems to me that the thinking is extremely similar - organisation by category and making things easily navigable.



We have stuff in the UDSF indexes that just wouldn't make it into the higher levels on the current wiki indexes. The decision to place it in a main index on the UDSF is based mainly on community feedback in the forums as to the relevant merits of the how-to. Quite simply, good feedback means it's in, bad reviews it's out, or put on hold until the bugs are ironed out in the thread. The doc/wiki team can't replicate that sort of community feedback or decision making and is a limitation of a wiki only approach.

If we're going to talk about my idea of collaboration, we have to start from the same premise - that everyone (the whole community) would be working together on this. I'm not talking about a wiki-only approach. If you start from that premise, you see that in fact that the community feedback you're talking about *can* be replicated in a single community resource, because if it happens elsewhere, you've proved that it can be done, period.

Forum threads are a great way to discuss the reliability of guides, whereever they are to be found.

[manicka]

I'm not talking about a wiki-only approach. If you start from that premise, you see that in fact that the community feedback you're talking about *can* be replicated in a single community resource, because if it happens elsewhere, you've proved that it can be done, period.

Forum threads are a great way to discuss the reliability of guides, whereever they are to be found.

Then I guess it boils down to where the how-to is created to generate that discussion and there in lies to the sticking point IMO. The how-to forum here works on a variety of levels already discussed. Removing that capability from the forums would not be a satisfactory solution.

[mattheweast]

Then I guess it boils down to where the how-to is created to generate that discussion and there in lies to the sticking point IMO. The how-to forum here works on a variety of levels already discussed. Removing that capability from the forums would not be a satisfactory solution.

The second and third sentences are absolutely right. But this isn't a sticking point - this method of community feedback can work regardless of where the guide is created, or where it is to be found.

Imagine if the how to section of the forum was used for posting guides which then get inserted into the "central documentation resource" I've talked about on my blogpost (in the same way as they get inserted into the Storage Facility now), AND for discussion of those and other guides to be found in the same place. What changes from the current system? Not a lot, there is still great community feedback going on.

[manicka]

Imagine if the how to section of the forum was used for posting guides which then get inserted into the "central documentation resource" I've talked about on my blogpost (in the same way as they get inserted into the Storage Facility now), AND for discussion of those and other guides to be found in the same place. What changes from the current system? Not a lot, there is still great community feedback going on.

There is nothing stopping you organising an effort to do that now. I've seen discussion in this thread about how easy it would be to gather a team together to get it going.

If you believe it can work then why not create an example for people to look at and evaluate. I can't see anyone agreeing to replace a working system with something else that looks good on paper. Concrete examples of what you envision are needed.

[mattheweast]

There is nothing stopping you organising an effort to do that now. I've seen discussion in this thread about how easy it would be to gather a team together to get it going.

If you believe it can work then why not create an example for people to look at and evaluate. I can't see anyone agreeing to replace a working system with something else that looks good on paper. Concrete examples of what you envision are needed.

You're right to a certain extent, I would certainly like to see an improved workflow between the forum howto section and the Ubuntu wiki as it is now. But the people most likely to be able to help with that are the people who work with the forum every day and are currently engaged in making this happen, except on another wiki.

It's important to realise that I don't want to replace a working system with something else - the existing system is clearly working well. What I'd like to see change is simply two groups of community members (who are already doing a good job separately) working together on the same resource.

[KingBahamut]

Fix the problem first, exemplify to the user that fixture is occuring. Then move on with recruiting your team to move and process active data. There is an invaluable resource there, one that is far more limitless than anything I have or maintain.

But I digress to ask, who would be your ideal candidates for this team of users?

[tseliot]

I'm involved in the UDSF (as KB and the others know) so it is likely that I'm able only to have a partial view of reality (as everyone of us does) so I beg you to consider my words ONLY my personal opinion (I don't hold the universal truth, provided it exists).

1) I find the UDSF easier to use and I would like that the official Wiki adopted the same scheme (I'm not an expert of Wikis though). Would that be possible?

BTW I find this page much cleaner than the old official wiki:
http://help.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/desktopguide/C/index.html

2) Azz has spent much more time than me on the forums (so that he might have a better view of reality here on the forums) but, from my experience, I can tell that I see many references to the UDSF (and I have never provided links to the Official Wiki) (ok I have also seen links to the official wiki). BUT maybe it's just me.

3) I have always seen the official Wiki as something "alien" to this community (the forum) (I'm NOT saying that it IS so). The guides which you can find on the UDSF are taken from the forum (in which are written and tested), and are usually written from the same people who help out on the forum. Or perhaps some people from the forums (like me) are "alien" to the Wiki. I really wouldn't know.

4) On the one hand there will always be users starting new threads on the forum because they don't know where to find a guide (and no, they don't use the Search function). Ok, perhaps it's a normal thing for unexeperienced users coming from Windows (who are not used to reading the documentation).

On the other hand there are other users who know what a Wiki is and use it (and I'm glad they do that). However many times (I'm speaking about my personal experience) they post in the threads of my guides (or PM me) asking for help about what they read on the Wiki. I answer them to follow my guides (which are on the UDSF) as I disagree with what is written on the Wiki (of course I don't complain in front of them) about the Nvidia Driver (ok, that seems like a reason for me to contribute to the Official Wiki).


5) I agree with both the ones who see the need of a better "cooperation" (between the two wikis) and the ones who see in the "independence" of the UDSF an advantage for Ubuntu's users.



Ok, after having digressed so much (and bored you to death) I would like to propose the following things:

A) Reorganising the Official Wiki so as to make it easier to find information.

B) Keeping the "HOWTOs, Tips & Tricks" section of the forum in which the users can:
* write new guides which can be ported to one or both of the Wikis
* find the links to the guides which are on the Wikis and discuss them, ask for explanations, find mistakes, bugs, and report their problems. In other words the guides can be TESTED on the forums (just like it happens with the guides on the forums).

C) Working on a script or some quick way to convert the guides from the format of a Wiki to the one of the other Wiki.

In this way I think both the Wikis can co-exist and collaborate albeit keeping different styles (in a broader sense of the term) and their independence.

[KingBahamut]

Im willing to take 2+ members nominated by you, MatthewEast, move them to the Archival Team , and they can work for me. We can then ensure that all pertinent data is moved from one wiki to the other, while not causing sacrifice to the integrity of either source's data.

If collaboration is whats needed, you send me the workforce, and Ill ensure that it happens. We shouldnt stop doing something that just works, so we must aggree to compromise on what to do.

Im totally open to directing individuals of your choosing for this job.

Ill wait to hear from you mdke.

[bonzodog]

I am going to stick my nose out here, and hope I don't get trodden on, but I think I know what the central problem of the main wiki is;

Quite simply put, it's running the wrong software.

One of the reasons that mediawiki is so popular is because of the way it displays and organises documents; it is very highly developed and makes the best usage of being an easy to edit, pleasing to the eye kind of thing.

Moin Moin has it's up sides though; I think it makes a great bulletin board/blog kind of thing. It's a great place to post notices and ideas for projects, but it's a sod of job to organise in a way to be useful for docs for general help.

I would think that the easiest way to solve this is to make the help docs seperate from the main wiki, and just leave the wiki to general stuff such as project pages, and notices , and information about the main distribution.
The public doc wiki, if it is to succeed as a general publicly editable facility for general guides, needs to be run on Mediawiki; that way collaboration between help.ubuntu.com and the UDSF would be very easy, as we could use the interwiki protocol.
I personally would love to be able to go to help.ubuntu.com, and see a mediawiki front end. That to me would say that we have come full circle, and true community collaboration could begin.

[LaserJock]

I am going to stick my nose out here, and hope I don't get trodden on, but I think I know what the central problem of the main wiki is;

Quite simply put, it's running the wrong software.

One of the reasons that mediawiki is so popular is because of the way it displays and organises documents; it is very highly developed and makes the best usage of being an easy to edit, pleasing to the eye kind of thing.

Moin Moin has it's up sides though; I think it makes a great bulletin board/blog kind of thing. It's a great place to post notices and ideas for projects, but it's a sod of job to organise in a way to be useful for docs for general help.

I would think that the easiest way to solve this is to make the help docs seperate from the main wiki, and just leave the wiki to general stuff such as project pages, and notices , and information about the main distribution.
The public doc wiki, if it is to succeed as a general publicly editable facility for general guides, needs to be run on Mediawiki; that way collaboration between help.ubuntu.com and the UDSF would be very easy, as we could use the interwiki protocol.
I personally would love to be able to go to help.ubuntu.com, and see a mediawiki front end. That to me would say that we have come full circle, and true community collaboration could begin.

This has come up more than once in the doc team discussions. Now that we are moving the documentation parts of wiki.ubuntu.com to help.ubuntu.com we can think about this again. I know several of the wiki team members want to move to media wiki. Others are more familar with Moin and can do some pretty amazing things with it. I'm a wiki newb so I really don't have much of an opinion.

-LaserJock

[mattheweast]

Hi,

Thanks for lots of constructive comments about collaboration, I'm happy to see that. Sadly I've just accidentally closed my browser so this post won't be as good as the one I just wrote, and lost, but I'll make some quick comments anyhow.

With regard to the comments that have been made about the wiki, I think what we'll do is get the wiki move out of the way first, and then settle down to get some feedback from users about what they'd like to see improved on the look, content and presentation. We should start a separate thread for wiki feedback though.

With regard to the ideas about collaboration between the various wikis, I'm pleased to see these ideas coming out and there are some good ones. In the long term, I really want the forum users and contributors to see the Ubuntu documentation as THEIR resource, because the forum is a massive part of the Ubuntu community, and that's why the documentation is there. I hope that in the future a separate documentation site for the forum won't be necessary, and all the parts of the community will work together. tseliot, you've got it right when you say that forum users see the main wiki as alien, and that the Storage Center seems more comfortable because it is people who live and work in the forums every day that work on it. I'd like to see an Ubuntu community where all sections of the community are comfortable with contributing to the others.

In the short term, the ideas for collaboration are good. There are definitely lots of things we can do to make sure (a) that the people working on the Ubuntu wiki are aware of the content on the storage center, and the ideas there about presentation and organisation, and (b) that the people who hang out in the forum will see the Ubuntu wiki as there for them, and will use it as a frame of reference for support, and contribute their howtos to it, as well as discussing guides that appear there on forum threads.

I don't think it is appropriate to nominate specific individuals for a role of porting documents, because that isn't really the way we work on the wiki, people just tend to dive in on the subjects that they feel are suited to their experience, however I will certainly make an effort to ensure that (a) can happen. Hopefully people on the forum will take care of (b).

Thanks,

Matt

[Henrik]

I think my good friend Matthew East has a valid general point when he talks about collaboration: that it can make wonderful things happen. However, I don't quite agree that collaboration can only take the form of everyone working together on a single document facility. It may be that trying to implement that involves more pain than it's worth.

People sometimes do things in different ways and for different reasons. Yes, it is sometimes easier to start up something new than to improve something that isn't working quite well. Sometimes that's the right choice, sometimes not. It is often more important to get on with doing _something_ than deliberating forever over what is the ideal solution. That's what the UDSF folks have done, and many have found it very useful. It's often possible to come back to the issue at a later stage and consider whether you should try to merge the branches back together. That's the point we are approaching now. (I presume I am correct in assuming that the content of both is public domain)

The wiki.ubuntu.com wiki was and is being used for many things other than documentation, which with it's 6000 pages made it a bit of a chore to navigate. The new docs-focused wiki at help.ubuntu.com should be much more focused in that regard and I think we'll soon see a nice and tidy indexed structure there. Matthew East therefore thinks the time is right to revisit the question of whether we should focus all the content and all the work on a single site. Other people are less convinced by that. I can certainly understand their point of view, esp. at this early stage before we have actually seen the new wiki up and running. In two weeks time when the content has been moved and some cleaning up and restructuring has taken place, the picture may be very different.

BUT, that still leaves the question of whether we should then work to collect all the documentation on one 'official' community-driven site or we should continue with the current approach of having two separate wikis with documentation for end users.

First, let me say that I really don't have strong feelings either way. I want to see a good offering of documentation and support for the end user though, and harmonious collaboration across our community :)

Let me next try to lay out some of the core issues I have seen raised and my views on them:

A single URL for users to go to

As our community ecosystem continues to grow, there is always the danger of everything turning into a huge mess of sites with no real structure to navigate them by. You cannot make this argument regarding forum vs. wiki because many people simply prefer one over the other and we should therefore cater for both. You _can_ make that argument against two separate wikis, but two isn't that big of a number. If both are easy to find, you may search one and if that doesn't have quite what you need you search the other. Done.

Are people worried about the domino effect, that two will turn into ten? One could argue that the official wiki outgrew itself and became crufty and messy and that it was therefore easier to start a new one, AND after a year of use the same will happen to UDSF and by December we will have three major wiki sites. There might be ways of avoiding that though. So I think that the argument that two URLs is one to many is a bit weak, esp. if each site has a clear profile and both are easy to find.

More collaboration produces better overall documentation

I think that is generally true. Some will point out that different users may prefer different kinds of documentation and having choice provides for that. I would say that writing really good (clear and correct) documentation requires a lot of work, and often needs input from several people to get it right. So I think collaboration is almost always good, and the more eyeballs a text gets the better. But does collaboration have to mean working on only one site?

The variety of distros has been mentioned as an argument for how choice is good, esp. if each choice serves a distinct purpose or audience. That said, it always works better with collaboration. Debian and Ubuntu have different purposes and profiles. Each helps define the other better and each can benefit from the work of the other, and this is esp. true when we manage to collaborate well, sharing ideas and patches. In the open source world, the collaboration happens on two levels, the social level through emails, lists, forums and workshops, and also on the code level with sharing of full applications and small patches. In the documentation world, the collaboration can be social in the same way and with shared text and graphics replacing the code. We can have separate projects as long as we actively collaborate by sharing materials and ideas.

It's all about control

Some would say that there is substantial stubbornness on one side or the other based on wanting to gain or keep control. We can speculate endlessly about the motives for this, but actually it's not that interesting as long as the 'source' (ie. text) is free. Perhaps one group wants to keep control of their site because they are using it to build up their own personal reputations and CVs, perhaps some people are doing it as part of a grand plan to make money, perhaps publish books using the public domain contents. Many people are doing it simply out of a desire to help other people and because it's fun!

Who cares? When the source is free you don't have to worry about other people's motives. You really don't, it's just a waste of time. When you contribute something in the form of text, images or collaboration effort to the larger pool you know that it will be used for the common good. Don't worry too much about why, focus instead on making your own positive contributions to the world around you ;)

Now, if someone set up a documentation site that was 'closed source' (ie. under restrictive copyright) and required copyright-transfer from all contributors, then I would be extremely sceptical and would encourage others to avoid it.

However, when I see someone setting a different facility because they prefer a different wiki software or have a different editorial style or just like to run their own little project, I'm honestly not that bothered. Go ahead, try it your way. The users and contributors will decide which setup they prefer. As long as we can all share the source, I'm happy. The trick is that we have to learn to become much better at sharing that source. That is an active process that requires work and communication. When a new site or new project (or distro) turns up we need to actively explore how we can share the goodness and spread the workload. Tools can help, but that will never be a fully automated thing. It requires effort and communication.

It might be that a single site is the best way for us to share and mix that content, but it might be that two sites work equally well and that from our current starting point is easier to achieve.

On actually merging the sites

Matthew, you are basically suggesting that we merge in the content and the editorial staff of the UDSF into help.ubuntu.com and then proceed to close down the UDSF. But surely we will only merge in the good stuff right? And obviously weed out duplication. So how much of the UDSF content do we end up retaining in the end? 75%, 25%? And who decides that? It's likely that the editorial teams of the two sites have fairly different styles and priorities, so this process could easily get bogged down.

Asking one party to close down their site and merge their content into another one, while possibly removing half of it in the process may not be the easiest way to start a collaboration :)

So here are my suggestions:

* We leave the two documentation wikis as separate sites for now and actively explore other ways to collaborate -- and by actively I mean that we make a concerted effort to share ideas content and to serve our users better

* If there is a strong message from the end users that having the two separate sites is unnecessary and confusing we can look at merging them later

* We write a joint statement that will be posted somewhere on each site explaining the purpose of each site and thereby their distinctions -- this will give us each a chance to think about what service we are providing and why. It might end up in improving the structure and quality of both sites and will make any distinctions clear to the user. This statement may include phrases like 'there is quite a bit of overlap between the content of the two sites' or 'there is a difference in the editorial vision', or 'the solutions presented on help.u.c tends be closer to the recommendations of the developers, while that on UDSF gives a larger selection of possible solutions', or whatever. Whatever the truth is about the similarities and distinctions between the two sites, let's agree on a statement of that so that it can be presented clearly to our users.

* We set up some formal process of moving content from one site to another when appropriate, involving the editorial teams of both sites. The help.ubuntu.com site is the one that is most closely linked with the documentation that ultimately gets translated and placed on the CD, so if a document at the UDSF is very well suited for that for some reason, there should be a process of suggesting that it be migrated to help.u.c. On the other hand if a document on help.u.c is deemed to be more suitable for UDSF then there should be a similar process for moving it in that direction.

This way we can start active collaboration today, without the painful process of merging the two sites and arguing about what the one right approach should be.

Henrik Omma
Ubuntu webmaster

[kassetra]

@Henrik:
Just a small note here -
The forums and the udsf are under the same license, Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 license, and are not public domain.

[aysiu]

I was a new user not too long ago (May 2005), and what confused me the most was not having to go to different sites to get information (that's almost a given in this day and age)--it was how the sites themselves were organized.

When I first started Linux, I went straight to Linux.org, thinking that would be the best place to get information. Nope. It took me a while to figure out that the most obvious URLs are not usually the best.

The Wiki turned me off to Ubuntu because, at the time, it took me about six clicks off the main Ubuntu website to actually find out how to install Ubuntu.

What turned me back on was ubuntuguide.org, which had an easy-to-remember URL and all the information on one long page you could scroll through.

As it is now, I find searching the Ubuntu Forums themselves (using Google) the easiest way to get to things:
site:ubuntuforums.org name of problem Two sites is only confusing if you assume new users will know about both sites. They most likely will stumble upon the Wiki (since it's linked directly off the Ubuntu main page) and not the Documentation Storage Facility.

So I don't see where the confusion comes in.

I heard about the Storage only after having been on a forum member. It didn't come up in my Google searches of navigating off the Ubuntu main page.

[KingBahamut]

Im sorry gents, I thought and felt the purpose was to develop a common ground of unity. If this isnt the case, then how can accord of the two be established. If by infact your asking for such unity and open expression, open sharing of knowledge, then I think you must embrace compromise. If in so your are unwilling to embrace compromise and share common ground, then why bother trying to unify at all.


Your statements seem forceful and rather pushy , dont you think Matthew? A matter of exerted control should never go so hard as that. You really shouldnt have to control where your users go , or why they go there, as long as the help they recieve is valid and decent.

To think that the UDSF ( or any other form of documentation site that exists -- the UbuntuGuide, eaylinux.info, or what have you ) would just summarily stop its existence because its unnessecary ( by in part saying " I hope that in the future a separate documentation site for the forum won't be necessary " ) is ludicrous.

Im quite sorry you feel the way you do matthew, but regardless of its nessecity or not, its popularity or not, its need in the community or not, it isnt going anywhere. I dont put faithlessness and question into your vision , your Picasso, I certainly dont deem that its not nessecary. It has its problems , there are areas of it that need to be repainted. And its valuable. Will always be.

Im open to collaboration, to a valid relationship. But thats only if the obvious collaboration benefits both resources, not one.

[manicka]

It's all about control

Some would say that there is substantial stubbornness on one side or the other based on wanting to gain or keep control. We can speculate endlessly about the motives for this, but actually it's not that interesting as long as the 'source' (ie. text) is free. Perhaps one group wants to keep control of their site because they are using it to build up their own personal reputations and CVs, perhaps some people are doing it as part of a grand plan to make money, perhaps publish books using the public domain contents. Many people are doing it simply out of a desire to help other people and because it's fun!

I'm not sure about others, but at the UDSF it is always about about the user. There is no one there concerned about CV's or reputation

On actually merging the sites


Matthew, you are basically suggesting that we merge in the content and the editorial staff of the UDSF into help.ubuntu.com and then proceed to close down the UDSF. But surely we will only merge in the good stuff right? And obviously weed out duplication. So how much of the UDSF content do we end up retaining in the end? 75%, 25%? And who decides that? It's likely that the editorial teams of the two sites have fairly different styles and priorities, so this process could easily get bogged down.

Therein again lies the main issue. Both sites contain different editorial styles in regard to it's indexing and validation of pages. From my view one is quite autocratic while the other is less so, basing those decisions on community feddback. It's an issue that would have to be addressed before any successful merger could happen.

[aysiu]

Couldn't the Wiki and UDSF just start steering themselves in different directions--have different target audiences or different mission statements?

I proposed this earlier in the (now 10-page) thread, and I don't know if it didn't get picked up on because people were too busy arguing or because people just thought it was a lame idea, but wouldn't it make sense to have one set of documentation that's a sort of one-stop shopping for newcomers, another for post-install common questions, and yet another for more advanced tweaking?

Maybe both the Wiki and UDSF are too entrenched in hitting all of the above (newcomer, post-install, and advanced tweaking) to focus on any one or two.

Thoughts?

[mattheweast]

Your statements seem forceful and rather pushy , dont you think Matthew?
No, you've got me wrong. As I said, I'm encouraged by the collaborative suggestions that have been made and think that things can go forward positively. All I want is for the forum users and contributors to see the documentation on help.ubuntu.com as part of their community and their resource.

[manicka]

Thoughts?

The UDSF's goal (http://doc.gwos.org/index.php/Ubuntu_Document_Storage_Facility:About#The_Focus_a nd_Purpose_of_UDSF) is simple. It is an organised archive or knowledgebase of forum data. It has no specific target audience, it is just an organisational tool for the forums.

[kassetra]

Couldn't the Wiki and UDSF just start steering themselves in different directions--have different target audiences or different mission statements?

I proposed this earlier in the (now 10-page) thread, and I don't know if it didn't get picked up on because people were too busy arguing or because people just thought it was a lame idea, but wouldn't it make sense to have one set of documentation that's a sort of one-stop shopping for newcomers, another for post-install common questions, and yet another for more advanced tweaking?

Maybe both the Wiki and UDSF are too entrenched in hitting all of the above (newcomer, post-install, and advanced tweaking) to focus on any one or two.

Thoughts?

Well, the UDSF is honestly an archive of howtos from the forums. The intended audience is the forum howto-user audience. That's been it's mission from the start. It covers very little of the "Why" ... but covers an extreme amount of the "How" ... As I have said before, the fact that it uses a wiki to accomplish the Archival goals is irrelevant, we should probably write our own tool to use instead of a wiki so as to end the "two wikis but there should only be one" discussions.

[aysiu]

So really there should be no confusion, then, right--in having two sites?

[kassetra]

So really there should be no confusion, then, right--in having two sites?

That was the idea. :rolleyes:

[KingBahamut]

No, you've got me wrong. As I said, I'm encouraged by the collaborative suggestions that have been made and think that things can go forward positively. All I want is for the forum users and contributors to see the documentation on help.ubuntu.com as part of their community and their resource.


Then its a matter of what "just works" vs what doesnt. If the users use it, then they just use it. If they dont, they dont. Perhaps your concentrating on the wrong area for advancement.

[tseliot]

No, you've got me wrong. As I said, I'm encouraged by the collaborative suggestions that have been made and think that things can go forward positively. All I want is for the forum users and contributors to see the documentation on help.ubuntu.com as part of their community and their resource.
I saw that your intentions are good and I understand your hope to see only 1 wiki. I know that it would be for users' sake and not for someone's will to control all the documentation.

If the idea is that of merging the 2 wikis then I think we should wait until the official wiki gets a better wiki style (or structure, I really don't know how to call it). Then and only then we should talk about it again.

Kassetra's idea should be taken into consideration as well as other suggestions to change the wiki.

[Mustard]

To address the initial subject of the thread. The UDSF is a valuable and useful extension of the forum. It original purpose of being an archive of valuable collaborative HOW-TO's that had become bogged down by the sheer volume of threads being created in that section of the forum, still stands and the UDSF will always be needed for that purpose.

What I am seeing in this thread is that there are several sub-groups of the ubuntu forum population that perhaps are not always aware of what the others are doing and experiencing. I for one am generally ignorant of the bigger picture issues that are going on behind the scenes, as I tend to be involved in the minutae of simply helping individual users to find solutions to there problems. My time on ubuntu very much consists of finding problems that people have and directing them to the right resources to find their solutions. I would point people towards Aysiu's comments earlier, about which nothing much has been said so far, but there does exist distinct groups of people who would be looking for a certain type of documentation that would fulfill there own unique needs.

Just to use a few sub-groups as an example, we have the group of people who have just installed Ubuntu, have no idea about linux and need to know the basic steps to getting a working system going. Some good guides exist for this, although I think none have been as universally accepted as the ubuntuguide.org was for Hoary Hedgehog.

Related to this group are those who have common technical problems that arise and are looking for more of a troubleshooting guide. Some of the technical issues have common answers and are in some way related to installation issues and many of the answers to these questions can be found via the ubuntu wiki, or other community created guides.

A third group, which is covered very well by the UDSF in particular are people who are looking to use there system as an advanced linux user for example those seeking to customise the look, customise the performance, or tweak there systems using techniques that are beyond the basic linux skills of installing the operating system and installing/running an application that performs a specific task.

There are more groups I am sure, but I think it might be useful for those in this discussion to contemplate that each of the current resources is catering to very specific needs and there is not so much a duplication of effort going on, as there is disparate groups catering for different needs that are not being met by each individual resource.

If I want to tweak my system to make it look pretty, or learn how to use the latest anti-virus solution for linux, I can look in the UDSF or the Ubuntu forum/IRC for answers.

If I want to know how to set up my first time installation to be functioning effectively and productively, I can find many answers in the ubuntu wiki, some through other third party contributions, and again some through individual threads or conversations in the ubuntuforums/IRC community.

When contemplating bringing the efforts of all of these contributors together, I think its important to acknowledge that they are all doing what they do because somewhere along the line a real need was identified and was not being met by any single resource.

I suppose that the main point I would like to contribute to this discussion. Some minor points would be these, and I would say these are more my perceptions than any indication of reality.

The administration of the forum promotes the use of the UDSF for what seem to me to be quite obvious reasons. It is an extension of the forum, in that it's content was initially and continues to be, content derived from the forum. The UDSF is good at what it does, and that is storing information/content created on the forums and organising it in an easy to read format. I think it should continue to do what it does well and remain an extension of the forum community. The forum community is really a dynamic and complex ongoing collaboration in it's entirety. The simple function of distilling something from that collaboration into the UDSF is much appreciated.

The Ubuntu wiki, would be a good place for some of this content to be replicated, however the blood, sweat and tears necessary to make that happen have not been forthcoming. The Ubuntu wiki offers a whole different branch of information concerning the use and abuse of the Ubuntu operating system and for myself at least is used far more often than the UDSF. There is however, less centralised leadership at the ubuntu wiki, for this reason I think there is more confusion. There is no obvious point of meeting for collaboraters on the wiki. The indexing is not efficiently guiding people to content, considering the wikis primary uses. Another issue is that the choice of software for the wiki has met with some resistance from potential contributors to the site. I think a lot of these problems can be overcome, but it does require that the wiki start to clean up its own problems before it becomes the documentation site of first choice for all contributors.

Some simple pros and cons between the two sites would be....

UDSF:- efficient organisation and layout due to the more controlled nature of its creation and control of its contributors. This has also limited it content and scope and hence it's overall usefulness to a wide spectrum of users. It's very specifically targeted at more advanced or advancing users. I don't think it was ever really meant to be anything but a limited resource covering very specific needs.

Ubuntu Wiki: A wide number of subjects covered, a more universal guide to HOW TO use ubuntu and knowledge that is helpful in the consideration and use of the Ubuntu operating system. Its disorganised and indexing is not ideal. It lacks visible leadership and community, but provides a greater range of information (albeit it hard to find at times).

I would like to see ubuntuforums take some type of role in the creation of a centralised meeting point for ubuntu wiki contributors, as I think this is what is really lacking on the Ubuntu wiki. There is no obvious place to discuss anything. If I want to make a change, but have no clue what to do, I have noone I can ask. There is no well recognised medium for the exchange of ideas specifically relating to and targeting the creation of content for the ubuntu wiki. I think this would certainly be a good opportunity for the ubuntuforums to embrace the wiki, as the ubuntuforums has the monopoly on the being the 'face of the community', and as such has the power to bring other less well known sections of the community into a more prominent role.

[matthew]

Some good guides exist for this, although I think none have been as universally accepted as the ubuntuguide.org was for Hoary Hedgehog.http://ubuntuguide.org/wiki/Dapper
Not as universally accepted (mainly because next to nothing else existed at the time Hoary came out) but pretty much the same info, maybe a bit more. It will also elicit the same complaints from some sectors as well.

[KingBahamut]

Perhaps that speaks for the UDSFs ability to succeed , our personal contact with the user. It should be possible for wiki members to communicate with users on the same level. There was never any harm in asking a user if you can use what they write. We do it all the time, perhaps thats something you should consider as well. Develop a repoire with the userbase?

Developing this kind of relationship with the users (because we are all users, including you Matthew, I mean, you are human right?) benefits you greatly.

Of course this should be back in the Polls thread, and its going there as well.