[proposal] wiki

Bug #827487 reported by Marqin
12
This bug affects 2 people
Affects Status Importance Assigned to Milestone
harmonySEQ
Confirmed
Wishlist
Unassigned

Bug Description

Isn't wiki better than a manual? Manuals were good in times when they were on paper, but in internet times wiki is better...

Tags: proposal
Marqin (marqin)
Changed in harmonyseq:
status: New → Opinion
papukaija (papukaija)
Changed in harmonyseq:
status: Opinion → New
Marqin (marqin)
Changed in harmonyseq:
status: New → Opinion
Changed in harmonyseq:
importance: Undecided → Wishlist
Marqin (marqin)
Changed in harmonyseq:
assignee: nobody → Marqin (marqin)
Revision history for this message
papukaija (papukaija) wrote :

Please don't change this bug's status to 'Opinion' as it's defined as "there’s a difference of opinion around this bug and people are free to continue the discussion, but the project or package maintainers need to move to other work and are considering the issue closed.". Thanks in advance.

Changed in harmonyseq:
assignee: Marqin (marqin) → papukaija (papukaija)
assignee: papukaija (papukaija) → nobody
status: Opinion → New
Revision history for this message
papukaija (papukaija) wrote :
Revision history for this message
Rafał Cieślak (rafalcieslak256) wrote :

While whether manuals are useful in the times of the Internet is a matter of opinion and my arguments against this statement are appropriate for discussion that should rather be held somewhere else, I do agree that it might be a nice addition, where support is needed.
To make it clear, I would not use wiki instead of a traditional manual [which should be included in the release for offline usage], but rather along with it.
Though I am unsure if, at the current level of harmonySEQ's popularity, a potential wiki might meet with any interest, I have considered that option, and concerning the possibilities that are about to be released as version 0.16 this seems like a reasonable approach to provide confused users with basic support.
Note that wiki is meant to be community-driven, and I would appreciate that if I were let known, if there is anyone interested in helping me to manage the articles on such potential wiki.
So let's say I am interested in having one, provided I will be sure there will be any use of it, which is unlikely (yet).
The hosting and software selection parts are of course the last to consider.
Anyway thanks for the proposition, that's a good and a doable idea, though I do not want to waste my working resources in case the wiki would be useless (and user-less).

Ask in case of any questions.

Changed in harmonyseq:
status: New → Confirmed
Revision history for this message
Rafał Cieślak (rafalcieslak256) wrote :

To sum up my point, as I am not sure if it's clear from my comment: The wiki is a good idea, and it is likely there will be one in the future, but I think it's too soon now (unless there is a lot of users whom I am not aware of who are willing to use a wiki).

Revision history for this message
Marqin (marqin) wrote :

Ok.

To post a comment you must log in.
This report contains Public information  
Everyone can see this information.

Other bug subscribers

Remote bug watches

Bug watches keep track of this bug in other bug trackers.