Difference between revisions of "Talk:Getting involved"

From ArchWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
m
(11 intermediate revisions by 3 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
=Merger Proposal (previously from [[Community Projects]]=)
+
Good work pointone! [[User:Manolo|manolo]] 21:32, 12 November 2009 (EST)
  
[http://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Community_Projects Community Projects] and [http://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/How_to_become_an_Arch_developer How to Become an Arch Developer] share similarities, despite the seeming difference in titles.
+
== "Giving credit is not "pimping". Respect others and their contributions." ==
  
Community Projects seeks to be a comprehensive list of Arch related projects, with a brief description and a link to each one. Currently, it is a stub.
+
A quote from [[ArchWiki_Tutorial#Editing]] disagrees: "Articles should not be signed because they are shared works; one editor should not be singled out above others."
  
How to Become an Arch Developer is a list of ways to become an Arch developer. Most of those ways are helping out with community projects within Arch. Currently, it too is a stub.
+
Seeing that there's no central authoritarian article dealing with these issues, and that the vast majority of contributions go unsigned, how does the new "pimping-clause" (dibs on the term) fit into or even consider the environment surrounding it?
  
By merging the information from Arch Developer into Community Projects, a single article can be created listing all Arch Community Projects, what they are, and how to contribute to them.  
+
Such an addition would've had to consider all of the contradicting elements, which I guess happened in the span between [https://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?pid=886815#p886815 these] [https://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?pid=887486#p887486 two] forum posts. Wait, that didn't happen.
  
And just to make it more interesting, give some thought to merging in this page as well: [http://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Mutualism_Arch Mutualism Arch]
+
Steps to be taken before the pimping-clause takes effect:
  
All three of these pages could be synthesized into one comprehensive page about Arch community projects, what they are, where they are, and how to contribute to them.
+
# Eradicate the note I quoted from [[ArchWiki_Tutorial#Editing]], or make a distinction (with difference) between in-line code and other content, such as sentences preceding the code. In the process, go against the practices of many wikis, including Wikipedia, and alienate editors that shy away from signing their contributions.
 +
# Establish some sort of criteria to decide when a paragraph or a chunk of code stops being the original. In the process, ignore how complicated this task really is. End up settling with something completely arbitrary like 50% code change == new code, and disregard that a 5% change could have a more significant influence on how and what the program does.
 +
# Once it has been determined that the altered code is no longer the original, the content becomes authorless, like the vast majority of articles currently featured in the Arch Wiki.
 +
# Notice that most articles with significant history and quality have thousands of edits by hundreds of editors, yet continue with the pretense that including a name is "attribution" and not "pimping".
 +
# Since every edit is to have a signature to its right, alter the history interface so that it does not show the authors name besides the commit. Otherwise, you'd be imitating what the MediaWiki already does out of the box.
  
Since I am proposing this merger, it is only fair that I also volunteer to undertake most if not all of the editing work involved. So I volunteer.
+
Finally, before all of this takes place, spread the conversation between the wiki talk pages and the forum, so that any attempt at communication involves opening 3 tabs of back and forth between casual contributors that react by impulse instead of studying the conditions of the wiki before reaching consensus. [[User:Lavandero|Lavandero]] 03:50, 3 February 2011 (EST)
  
However, before I start hacking everything up, there should be discussion among the various stakeholders of these pages first. Let's chat.
+
:These points belong on the [[Help:Editing]] page, in my opinion, which is intended to cover ArchWiki style and convention. Further, I think only the ''pimping clause'' needs clarification; "don't post incorrect information" and "don't be a jerk" are common-sense rules, no? Those users that need reminding of these rules are the same users that would never read or heed them.
  
Cheers,
+
:In my opinion, any significant script/code contribution should be split into a separate page in [[:Category:Scripts]], signed and ''maintained'' by its author(s). This separates the edit histories of the script and its related article(s).
Luke Seubert
+
  
P.S. Those curious as to my editing ability, such as it is, are referred to my [http://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/User_talk:Lseubert#Arch_Wiki_Curriculum_Vitae Arch Wiki C.V.]
+
:-- [[User:Pointone|pointone]] 10:46, 3 February 2011 (EST)
<br>
+
<br>
+
  
===great idea===
+
::If you mean moving "don't post incorrect info.", "don't be a jerk", and the pimping clause, then I agree. Although I think that looking into what these points have in common with the forum's code of conduct could be worth it, specially considering that two out of three are implicit.
this sounds like a great idea.
+
I agree that while it doesn't seem like these pages are related at first (based on name), if you actually visit the pages you can see significant high level commonality.
+
  
I think bringing them all together under one section would be a great idea, and reduce the need of new users to have to go looking for places to contribute, as well as neat Arch-based applications to use (often the itch and the scratching post go hand in hand).  
+
::You also address pages that are more or less exclusively dedicated to code. I don't really have an opinion on these, and I was trying to focus on small pieces of code that are spread about articles. The latter are fairly common and mostly written in shell. That's not to say that there shouldn't be a portion of [[Help:Editing]] covering script-only pages. [[User:Lavandero|Lavandero]] 10:35, 4 February 2011 (EST)
 
+
--[[User:Cactus|cactus]] 19:38, 27 May 2009 (EDT)
+
<br>
+
<br>
+
===Is a name change in order?===
+
 
+
Thanks for your support cactus. Let me ask you this - is a name change in order? Should there be a new name, more accurately describing the contect of such a new page? Or should one of the three current page names be retained and used instead?
+
 
+
Cheers,<br>
+
Luke Seubert
+
 
+
===A suggestion===
+
The current wiki page for "community" is actually discussing the "community repository ", I'd suggest moving the current page named "community" to "community repository", and merging those three pages under the paged titled "Community".
+
--[[User:Crouse|crouse]] 11:32, July 18 2009 (CST)
+

Revision as of 18:23, 23 April 2012

Good work pointone! manolo 21:32, 12 November 2009 (EST)

"Giving credit is not "pimping". Respect others and their contributions."

A quote from ArchWiki_Tutorial#Editing disagrees: "Articles should not be signed because they are shared works; one editor should not be singled out above others."

Seeing that there's no central authoritarian article dealing with these issues, and that the vast majority of contributions go unsigned, how does the new "pimping-clause" (dibs on the term) fit into or even consider the environment surrounding it?

Such an addition would've had to consider all of the contradicting elements, which I guess happened in the span between these two forum posts. Wait, that didn't happen.

Steps to be taken before the pimping-clause takes effect:

  1. Eradicate the note I quoted from ArchWiki_Tutorial#Editing, or make a distinction (with difference) between in-line code and other content, such as sentences preceding the code. In the process, go against the practices of many wikis, including Wikipedia, and alienate editors that shy away from signing their contributions.
  2. Establish some sort of criteria to decide when a paragraph or a chunk of code stops being the original. In the process, ignore how complicated this task really is. End up settling with something completely arbitrary like 50% code change == new code, and disregard that a 5% change could have a more significant influence on how and what the program does.
  3. Once it has been determined that the altered code is no longer the original, the content becomes authorless, like the vast majority of articles currently featured in the Arch Wiki.
  4. Notice that most articles with significant history and quality have thousands of edits by hundreds of editors, yet continue with the pretense that including a name is "attribution" and not "pimping".
  5. Since every edit is to have a signature to its right, alter the history interface so that it does not show the authors name besides the commit. Otherwise, you'd be imitating what the MediaWiki already does out of the box.

Finally, before all of this takes place, spread the conversation between the wiki talk pages and the forum, so that any attempt at communication involves opening 3 tabs of back and forth between casual contributors that react by impulse instead of studying the conditions of the wiki before reaching consensus. Lavandero 03:50, 3 February 2011 (EST)

These points belong on the Help:Editing page, in my opinion, which is intended to cover ArchWiki style and convention. Further, I think only the pimping clause needs clarification; "don't post incorrect information" and "don't be a jerk" are common-sense rules, no? Those users that need reminding of these rules are the same users that would never read or heed them.
In my opinion, any significant script/code contribution should be split into a separate page in Category:Scripts, signed and maintained by its author(s). This separates the edit histories of the script and its related article(s).
-- pointone 10:46, 3 February 2011 (EST)
If you mean moving "don't post incorrect info.", "don't be a jerk", and the pimping clause, then I agree. Although I think that looking into what these points have in common with the forum's code of conduct could be worth it, specially considering that two out of three are implicit.
You also address pages that are more or less exclusively dedicated to code. I don't really have an opinion on these, and I was trying to focus on small pieces of code that are spread about articles. The latter are fairly common and mostly written in shell. That's not to say that there shouldn't be a portion of Help:Editing covering script-only pages. Lavandero 10:35, 4 February 2011 (EST)