You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@spamassassin.apache.org by Daniel Quinlan <qu...@pathname.com> on 2004/09/29 05:39:41 UTC

Wiki organization

I think we need to pay attention to the overall organization of wiki
pages.  For example, there are a zillion Bayes pages with overlapping
information and not much organization.

    * BayesAccuracy
    * BayesBitMe
    * BayesFaq
    * BayesFeedbackViaForwarding
    * BayesInSpamAssassin
    * BayesNotWorking
    * BayesUpgradeError
    * SiteWideBayesFeedback
    * SiteWideBayesSetup
    * SitewidePostfixBayes 
    * AutolearningNotWorking
    * FixingBadLearning
    * LearningMarkedUpMessages
    * UsingAnAccountForLearning 

In addition, there's not quite enough design in terms of the high-level
organization.  I'm wondering if we shouldn't try to structure most of
the documentation in terms of areas (in terms of how users think of
things, generally) and then documents like the FAQ and the problem
solving stuff point into those documents.

Anyway, just thinking out loud here.  :-)

Daniel

-- 
Daniel Quinlan                     ApacheCon! 13-17 November (3 SpamAssassin
http://www.pathname.com/~quinlan/  http://www.apachecon.com/  sessions & more)

Re: Wiki organization

Posted by Michael Parker <pa...@pobox.com>.
On Tue, Sep 28, 2004 at 08:39:41PM -0700, Daniel Quinlan wrote:
> I think we need to pay attention to the overall organization of wiki
> pages.  For example, there are a zillion Bayes pages with overlapping
> information and not much organization.
> 

I think this would be a good users list post.  Great thing about wikis
is that they tend to police themselves.  Granted, a little direction
might be needed but I'd bet we might be able to find some volunteers
willing to go clean up a few places.

Michael

Re: Wiki organization

Posted by Daniel Quinlan <qu...@pathname.com>.
Kenneth Porter <sh...@sewingwitch.com> writes:

> There was a post today about recording versions of software compatible with 
> SA3 (eg. MIMEDefang) in the Wiki. I went to look where such a thing might 
> go and see top-level items for "Using SA" and "Using SA with Procmail" when 
> the latter should be part of the former. But I'd hate to go mucking with 
> the entry page (esp. as a Wiki newbie) without more discussion of direction.
> 
> Does it make sense to create a new mailing list for Wiki authors? Would 
> there be enough traffic to justify it?

I'd be fine with a new mailing list for change messages and discussion.

In terms of making changes, just do it.  Be bold.  If you want feedback,
go ahead and ask, but it's better to ask for forgiveness than permission
in this case.

Daniel

-- 
Daniel Quinlan                     ApacheCon! 13-17 November (3 SpamAssassin
http://www.pathname.com/~quinlan/  http://www.apachecon.com/  sessions & more)

Re: Wiki organization

Posted by Kenneth Porter <sh...@sewingwitch.com>.
--On Tuesday, September 28, 2004 8:39 PM -0700 Daniel Quinlan 
<qu...@pathname.com> wrote:

> In addition, there's not quite enough design in terms of the high-level
> organization.  I'm wondering if we shouldn't try to structure most of
> the documentation in terms of areas (in terms of how users think of
> things, generally) and then documents like the FAQ and the problem
> solving stuff point into those documents

There was a post today about recording versions of software compatible with 
SA3 (eg. MIMEDefang) in the Wiki. I went to look where such a thing might 
go and see top-level items for "Using SA" and "Using SA with Procmail" when 
the latter should be part of the former. But I'd hate to go mucking with 
the entry page (esp. as a Wiki newbie) without more discussion of direction.

Does it make sense to create a new mailing list for Wiki authors? Would 
there be enough traffic to justify it?

Re: Wiki organization

Posted by "Malte S. Stretz" <ms...@gmx.net>.
On Wednesday 29 September 2004 05:39 CET Daniel Quinlan wrote:
>[...]
> In addition, there's not quite enough design in terms of the high-level
> organization.  I'm wondering if we shouldn't try to structure most of
> the documentation in terms of areas (in terms of how users think of
> things, generally) and then documents like the FAQ and the problem
> solving stuff point into those documents.

Good idea, MoinMoin supports sub-pages a la Bayes/Foo.

But the disadvantage with a "clean" Wiki is that its currently its so nice 
and easy to use it to just jot something down somewhere, without having to 
care for things like looking for the correct category first.  A bit messy 
overall but maybe more attractive for the text writers.

Cheers,
Malte

-- 
[SGT] Simon G. Tatham: "How to Report Bugs Effectively"
      <http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~sgtatham/bugs.html>
[ESR] Eric S. Raymond: "How To Ask Questions The Smart Way"
      <http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html>