Re: Getting Started With WO site
Re: Getting Started With WO site
- Subject: Re: Getting Started With WO site
- From: David Holt <email@hidden>
- Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2007 09:46:35 -0700
I think that the wikibook is a fantastic resource for reference if
you have a specific problem.
It is not the best place to get the context for why you might be
needing some of the advice in the wikibook.
Everyone who contributes where ever they can are going to give
context for why they're doing certain things. Whether it's a blog
like Keiran's that addressed all of his problems as a beginner and
how he found the solutions (and what solutions he found) or like
Mike's expert WOTips group. Some information is more appropriate one
place than another. I agree with Janine that everyone should do what
they want and let the "market" sort out the most valuable
contributions to the community. I have found that my present concerns
tend more towards the topics at the WOLips wiki and I really like the
interface for posting screenshots etc. on that wiki. It doesn't mean
that I don't find the "main" wiki useful, it is just not the place I
want to be putting my 2 cents right now. That will change as I move
onto other topics. It also doesn't stop anyone from referencing the
material from the WOLips wiki in the other one. They're both very
useful in their contexts.
If there is a tacit agreement that anything (blogs, tutorials,
mailing lists) is fair game for reference in the wikibook, that would
be great. I think that a small problem with the wikibook is that when
Mike set it up he asked those who gave permission for their posts to
be placed on the wikibook to contact him, and not every poster back
into the lists' history gave that permission. Sometimes I have doubts
about how much I am actually able to cut and paste in a quick and
dirty way from the mailing lists into wikibook topics.
David's new site would be really useful if he can provide the
"beginner's" context for other sites/references for specific topics
going forward. The opportunity for contributing in many different
places is all good.
And this is all just my opinion ;-) Cheers,
David
On 14 Jun 2007, at 9:22 AM, Steven Mark McCraw wrote:
Agreed. How do we (and I guess by we I mean everybody on this
list) come to an agreement on the one place that should be the
definitive posting grounds? Honestly, I sometimes find navigating
the wiki book less than ideal, but it's kind of a minor irritation
that I can live with if it solves the problem of a central
repository, and there's so much there already that it seems like
the most logical place to me. Whatever it is, it should be
publicly editable, I think, and it has to be searchable and
individual articles must be linkable. Is anybody in disagreement
that the wiki book is the best place ongoing to post information?
If so, can we start an effort to shuttle information posted
elsewhere into the wiki book if it is missing? If not, what are
alternative suggestions for the central repository of information?
Thanks,
Mark
On Jun 14, 2007, at 12:10 PM, Dana Kashubeck wrote:
On 6/14/07 11:57 AM, Steven Mark McCraw wrote:
My understanding is that the webobjects wiki book (http://
en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Programming:WebObjects) is trying to become
the central point of documentation for WebObjects that people
post to. There's already a ton of info there, but we all know it
could use a ton more. At WOWODC, when the experts panel was
asked what could be done to help with project wonder, this is
what they came back with immediately: We need people writing
documentation, and this is the place to put it. Even if it's
bad, there are so many people watching it that bad info will get
edited out quickly.
I think there's a danger in having TOO many informational sites.
If everybody decides to wing it because they get on a high at a
developer's conference regarding being able to document stuff to
widen the movement, I think we will end up with dozens of blogs,
half finished tutorials, etc. There's a reason there isn't much
documentation on Wonder and WebObjects: writing good
documentation is HARD and time consuming, and not a very
glamorous task. So if you have 10 spare hours to write a decent
article on a very specific issue, I think everybody would be
better served if that went to the wikibook. That way, everybody
can always point to one resource as definitive.
I don't mean to be preachy about it or rain on anybody's parade
that is putting up yet another site about WebObjects. What I
just wrote might sound snappy or mean, but I don't mean it that
way. I'm just trying to advocate a central repository for
everything so people don't have to go here and there to get
various pieces of the overall puzzle. Maybe if you start a site,
you could also make sure that all of the contents of that site
are also posted in the wiki book in the sensible place? Thoughts?
I was thinking the same thing. Last year there were some really
great efforts to put together "the site" for WebObjects
information. I think it was this one: http://
wiki.objectstyle.org/confluence/display/WOCOM/WOCOM
So there's that wiki, the wiki book, www.wocommunity.org, etc.,
etc. I completely agree that there is a huge need for
documentation and resources and it is important for the community
to put these things together. But right now everything just seems
*so* scattered! Can those who have been generous enough with
their time please post their content on one of the already
existing sites?
--
-------------------------------------
Dana Kashubeck
Systems Manager
Riemer Reporting Service Inc.
http://www.riemer.com
Phone: 440-835-2477 x. 125
Fax: 440-835-4594
-------------------------------------
<dana.kashubeck.vcf>
_______________________________________________
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
Webobjects-dev mailing list (email@hidden)
Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
@mac.com
This email sent to email@hidden
_______________________________________________
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
Webobjects-dev mailing list (email@hidden)
Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
This email sent to email@hidden