Do you consult the wiki? Ever?

[kevdog]

I often look for information on new topics -- call me the constant tinkerer. Rarely however do I consult the Ubuntu community wiki. It seems my search strategy is usually the forums, and then google. If google references a page in the wiki I'll take a look, but more often its a personal blog, another forum, another website.

Does anyone consult the wiki on a regular basis? What information have you found helpful in the wiki? I often find the info out of date.

[Lord Xeb]

The wiki comes in handy every-now-and-then. I have used it to install WoW, fix my ATI drivers, get HDAPS to run.... somewhat, and use it to figure out how to install a YUM in Ubuntu >:P

[tamoneya]

I more or less agree. I typically google: "ubuntu <topic>". Typically the first two results are Ubuntu Forums since they are some awesome. Everyone and a while I get the wiki site in which case I use it. I do however go to the intrepid release schedule fairly often but that is my only exception.

[loell]

of course! :D

but had the question been, Do you contribute to the wiki ever?

i haven't yet :( , or maybe once that it didn't warrant to anything :(

[YaroMan86]

I use the wiki myself occasional.

Though, my first step is to google the problem, seeking first to check links here on the Ubuntu Forums.

[hellion0]

I usually check the wiki when I'm looking for hardware. I consulted it when I bought a TV card recently. I'm not the type of user who's looking to write a driver from scratch just for basic functions. If it works "out of the box", great. If it requires a couple of config tweaks, fine. I can find these things out on the wiki.

[ChameleonDave]

I often look for information on new topics -- call me the constant tinkerer. Rarely however do I consult the Ubuntu community wiki. It seems my search strategy is usually the forums, and then google. If google references a page in the wiki I'll take a look, but more often its a personal blog, another forum, another website.

Does anyone consult the wiki on a regular basis? What information have you found helpful in the wiki? I often find the info out of date.
I don't search the wiki directly. I search Google, and sometimes a wiki article comes up and I use it.

But mainly I provide support rather than seek it.

[powerpleb]

The wiki is good if you know exactly what your problem is and there is a clear cut solution to it. But often everything seems fine then I get a weird error message, so I usually drop that message into Google and see what I find there.

The Arch Linux wiki is amazing though. Nearly every issue I have had installing Arch has been resolved from information on thier wiki.

[aysiu]

There are certain Wiki pages I refer people to, but most of the Wiki is pretty weak.

I will link to https://help.ubuntu.com/community/RootSudo and sometimes https://help.ubuntu.com/community/FirefoxNewVersion or https://wiki.ubuntu.com/HardwareSupport

That's about it.

[madjr]

There are certain Wiki pages I refer people to, but most of the Wiki is pretty weak.

I will link to https://help.ubuntu.com/community/RootSudo and sometimes https://help.ubuntu.com/community/FirefoxNewVersion or https://wiki.ubuntu.com/HardwareSupport

That's about it.

i also think the wiki software feels really old.

it lacks in many aspects.

finding stuff is almost impossible, unless you have a direct link.

for some stuff like development is pretty good

but for guides it sucks and most of them are outdated. Many prefer posting the guides on the forums.

really need some upgrades and a way to search.

[aysiu]

i also think the wiki software feels really old.

it lacks in many aspects.

finding stuff is almost impossible, unless you have a direct link.

for some stuff like development is pretty good

but for guides it sucks and most of them are outdated. Many prefer posting the guides on the forums.

really need some upgrades and a way to search.
You should have seen the Wiki three years ago. It was even more difficult to navigate then. You had to go about three links deep just to find any documentation whatsoever.

My main frustration with the Wiki is how comprehensive it is. Comprehensiveness can be a good thing... sometimes. But for new users, it can be overwhelming. They don't want instructions that are convoluted and take into account every single possible situation. They just want the basics, at least at first.

That's why I created my Psychocats tutorials. I like to keep it digestible and straightforward. A lot of times I get suggestions from people, and I have to decline to take them, even though they're well-meaning. If you want to see what I'm talking about, take a look at the difference between http://www.psychocats.net/ubuntu/firefox and https://help.ubuntu.com/community/FirefoxNewVersion

You'll see that I've boiled it down to the exact steps for installing the Mozilla Firefox with only some minimal explanation. The Wiki, however, goes on and on with overwhelming information and too many different installation methods. Since it is completely text-only, it just looks like a huge wall of text. It's not digestible. Part of that has to do with the styling. Maybe it's a limit in the Wiki software. I'm not sure.

[Stshow]

to tell the truth
I seldom use the Wiki
Although sometimes it is very useful
it is too old
and the gui of it is not very good
I use Google more~:)

[rudihawk]

Nope, I dont use the Wiki.

[madjr]

You should have seen the Wiki three years ago. It was even more difficult to navigate then. You had to go about three links deep just to find any documentation whatsoever.

My main frustration with the Wiki is how comprehensive it is. Comprehensiveness can be a good thing... sometimes. But for new users, it can be overwhelming. They don't want instructions that are convoluted and take into account every single possible situation. They just want the basics, at least at first.

That's why I created my Psychocats tutorials. I like to keep it digestible and straightforward. A lot of times I get suggestions from people, and I have to decline to take them, even though they're well-meaning. If you want to see what I'm talking about, take a look at the difference between http://www.psychocats.net/ubuntu/firefox and https://help.ubuntu.com/community/FirefoxNewVersion

You'll see that I've boiled it down to the exact steps for installing the Mozilla Firefox with only some minimal explanation. The Wiki, however, goes on and on with overwhelming information and too many different installation methods. Since it is completely text-only, it just looks like a huge wall of text. It's not digestible. Part of that has to do with the styling. Maybe it's a limit in the Wiki software. I'm not sure.

yes, that's a huge difference.

i do consider myself experienced and not afraid of the terminal, but i would prefer your guide over the wiki any day.

i really like psychocats.net and your tutorials could be very useful for the new ibex spec:

https://wiki.ubuntu.com/NewUserEducation

[ghindo]

I use the Wiki occasionally. It's not the best, but it's pretty decent. I learned how to use ssh from the Wiki, among other things :)

[billgoldberg]

I often look for information on new topics -- call me the constant tinkerer. Rarely however do I consult the Ubuntu community wiki. It seems my search strategy is usually the forums, and then google. If google references a page in the wiki I'll take a look, but more often its a personal blog, another forum, another website.

Does anyone consult the wiki on a regular basis? What information have you found helpful in the wiki? I often find the info out of date.

I first search on some keywords in the search engine, then if I don't find any relevant results (rarely), I search in the forums.

I never really use the wiki as I always get lost, and the info isn't really up to date or the thing you looking for can be explained the hardest possible way.

[kevdog]

Would the wiki be better if for example it allowed screen captures and other pictures that explained processes better (similar to psychocats' tutorial pages -- which are excellent when first starting out!).

And no unfortunately I've never contributed to the wiki. Perhaps I am part of the problem.

[Dr Small]

I consult the Ubuntu Wiki and ArchLinux Wiki at times to give me something to read. At times, I just stumble across different things and then say "Hey. I didn't know that. I'll try that.".

[kevdog]

Dr. Small

Examples?

[der_joachim]

IMHO, the wiki is fantastic for configuring server software. That information does not age so fast. Most of the other stuff is pretty old though.

The search function is horrible though. It is completely unfit for such a big wiki. You should at least be able to filter out old versions (BreezyUpgrade!?!) and international versions.

As for the Arch wiki, it is a lot smaller and probably more managable. There isn't a single problem that I could not solve using the wiki. I almost feel sorry for buying a new laptop and discarding my old junker (that ran Arch). Maybe I should ditch the default linux version on my EEE (we hates Xandrossss, my Preciousssss) and reinstall Arch. :)

[aysiu]

Would the wiki be better if for example it allowed screen captures and other pictures that explained processes better (similar to psychocats' tutorial pages -- which are excellent when first starting out!).

And no unfortunately I've never contributed to the wiki. Perhaps I am part of the problem. Don't listen to people who say "If you don't like the Wiki, change it." First of all, sometimes your changes will be changed back. Secondly, you can't just go rearranging everything and renaming all the pages without serious pushback.

Since one of the major drawbacks of the Wiki is lack of organization, it really has to be a decision from the top to change the way the Wiki is maintained. Wikipedia works because it doesn't need to be organized. People don't just browse Wikipedia. They look for a Wikipedia page on a particular topic, and each page has one or more dedicated editors. The Ubuntu Wiki, if it's to be more useful, has to be delightfully explorable for new users.

Yes, screenshots would help. Better styling would help.

More importantly, though, there needs to be a vision and strict guidelines for how it's maintained. If documentation is to be helpful, it cannot be all things to all people.

If I made Psychocats as comprehensive as possible, covering every single aspect of every single subject related to Ubuntu, it would no longer be useful to new users. It would be overwhelming.

In the short term, it might be nice for the Wiki to decide to be totally comprehensive... or totally digestible. From there, it may be easier to change into a well-organized hybrid (where you would have abbreviated articles that linked to more thorough explanation).

Just my little ideas.

I might also add that HTML is a lot easier for me to edit than Wiki markup.

[kevdog]

aysiu

Strong opinions, but some of your points were dead on. I thought there was a documentation team, however to be honest, I haven't overtly found evidence of their work. Is this team still in existence?

[dizee]

I used to use the Ubuntuguide (http://ubuntuguide.org/wiki/Ubuntu:Hardy) wiki religiously but it's not really needed so much anymore. The official wiki is confusing and difficult to search so I don't use it much. I agree that it gives too much information, psychocats is a much better site to refer people to.