Re: Idea for navigation

On Wednesday 31 March 2004 06:31 pm, Jeremy wrote:
> On Wed, 31 Mar 2004, Aaron Peterson wrote:
> > I'd like to see this wiki be usefull as a wiki.
>
> 	Me too!
I was just checking... right now it looks to exclude the wiki part, and be a 
more traditional document system.

> > I know you guys don't like having navigation structure, but I just came
> > up with an idea that would allow me to be happy/shut up..
>
> 	I don't want anyone to "shut up", I want to help build the largest
> and most useful Linux knowledgebase we can.

Nuking pages/content is a way of making people shut up.
links to related content are content.

>
> > Your right that logical parent thing has limitations... but having one
> > way links makes it so that there is apperantly only one llogical parent
> > to a document...
>
> 	It shouldn't be one way links, but a web.

But my navigation links always get deleted because they are "not a part of the 
manual of style"

They don't get put anywhere else, and when I tried to add something to the 
style guide, the page was switched into a protected mode for a while.


> > example:
>
> foo ->
> 	blarney
> bar ->


 foo ->
        <-- blarny backlinks to foo
 	blarney has a nice paragraph description of blarney usage with foo, and 
there is no logical place to put a link to bar... either that or blarny is a 
long page with lots of links that use blarny as a base, and there might even 
be a link to bar, but the link to bar is sufficiently not findable
 bar ->

user wants to do something with bar, and found out about it via an internet 
search engine, user gets to foo, goes to bar, then gives up, becuase there is 
no link back to bar or the user creates a new page and redoes some work, only 
to get their content blown away by a moderator who replaces it with a link to 
bar... that still isn't linked to by blarny!

now, here comes a user who actually finds bar/is familiar with the wiki, and 
doesn't need the navigational structure  (moderators)  Does that moderator 
put a link up from blarny to bar?  No! not currently.

Here comes Aaron, or somebody else who cares about usability for the end user, 
and not some religious  manual of style,   (who is willing to work with the 
manual of style but got shot down)    and creates a link from blarny to bar!

Then along comes the manual of style fanatic, and deletes the link!  without 
putting it elsewhere or fixing the problem in another way!

This MoS fanatic effectively harmed Aaron!  and the community!   I put a lot 
of effort into finding the back links.  I have opportunity costst, so do 
other wiki members...   I'm spending a lot of effort, just to get it nuked in 
an action that doesn't take much effort.  It doesn't take much more effort to 
copy an old version of the page to the bottom of an existing page, or to fork 
the page.

1. Respect other peoples work by making live backups of content, and adding 
navigation /formatting (not changing format!)
2. Remember that it must be navigable for end users
3. there should not be WikiSquatting or Illegal , or grosly off topic content 
on the wikis.  (wiki squatting is soembody making their own off topic wiki, 
inside of another wiki with a well defined topic)
4. Moderators should use thier power to enforce previous rules
5. Modertors should be regular users most of the time

The number 1 rule of wiki's should be respect other peoples work.  Don't nuke 
it, make backups, make spelling corrections, add links to make it become  a 
part of the wiki... in the appropriate space on the wiki...  there are some 
things that are illegal, and should not be allowed to be on the wiki... that 
is what moderators should be for.

  Don't Fix it if It isn't broken!!!!  and the MoS doesnt' define wheather 
that page is working or not!!




, who recognize that the documentation is for people who are not interested in 
the workings of the wiki)




>
> I'd still say that if bar was related at all to blarny, then [[bar]]
> should appear somewhere in the blarny article (or at a bare minimum in
> the ==See also==).  By everything being interlinked like a web, the nav as
> you speak of it becomes 100% redundant IMHO.

 go check out some of the lessor wikis.. try to find anything...   it's tough!  

it's ok to be redundant.. in fact, we need the redundancy! Shakespere covered 
important plot elements multiple times in his plays so that the audience 
would get the ideas!

Besides, I've added non redundant links that were deleted, and I'm trying to 
get somebody to stop deleting them!

>
> --jeremy
>
> _______________________________________________
> Lqwiki-list mailing list
> Lqwiki-list-cunTk1MwBs/4hYYZOrhEC/[email protected]
> http://lists.linuxquestions.org/mailman/listinfo/lqwiki-list

-- 
509 332 7697
ICQ 2302806