<div>Hi,</div>For me the reasons for not using the Squeak swiki are mostly structure, versioning, ownership and the swikis relevance.<div><br></div><div>The swiki is quite a mess and a hard to navigate so it's hard to find stuff.</div>
<div>When I look at stuff, I hardly never know what version of Squeak this is describing and if it's still relevant.</div><div>If I then find out its relevant but need a change I'm unsure if I can change without interfering with other peoples work and references.</div>
<div>Then I wonder if its worth the effort to change stuff because the swiki is not relevant anymore...</div><div><br></div><div>ugh...</div><div><br></div><div>Karl</div><div><br><div><div><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">
On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 10:06 PM, Chris Muller <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:asqueaker@gmail.com">asqueaker@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
I, too, an fascinated by this question: _Why_ has the wiki "fallen<br>
out of favor?"<br>
<br>
I am skeptical that it is because there are multiple versions of<br>
Squeak and the inherent out-of-dateness that creates. This is<br>
something that all forms of documentation face, even internal ones<br>
that are versioned with the code. Just look at how often code<br>
comments are found to be out of of date.<br>
<br>
The value of documentation is all about what we *decide* to put into it.<br>
<br>
So why, oh why, have we "decided" to not update the wiki?<br>
<br>
IMO, we, as a community, are stuck in this feedback loop; where<br>
something that isn't "new and sexy", does not deserve our time or<br>
attention. The lack of attention causes bit-rot, further<br>
deteriorating the image of the "old thing".<br>
<br>
But the irony is, one of the "new sexy things" (depending on one's<br>
perceptions, of course) is just an electronic version of something<br>
much older than the wiki. The Pharo community are making on-line<br>
"books", much more old-fashioned than a wiki. The Squeak wiki, to me,<br>
seems much more dynamic, hyper-linked, and "finer-grained". It also<br>
*designed*, originally, for this medium known as The World Wide<br>
Web.... :)<br>
<br>
This is not a criticism of Pharo or the electronic-book format; I like<br>
books and their more linear nature bodes well for tutorials. I just<br>
think another great resource, the wiki, sits right under right our<br>
nose, and the only real "deficiency" it suffers as a tool for<br>
documentation is that it doesn't have sexy colors or buttons, thus<br>
leading to provoking our psychotic feedback loop..<br>
<font color="#888888"><br>
- Chris<br>
</font><div><div></div><div class="h5"><br>
<br>
<br>
On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 5:13 AM, Ralph Johnson <<a href="mailto:johnson@cs.uiuc.edu">johnson@cs.uiuc.edu</a>> wrote:<br>
> I've used lots of wikis over the years, starting with the original<br>
> <a href="http://c2.com" target="_blank">c2.com</a> wiki. While each had its unique features that made it<br>
> interesting, basically they were all good. Wikis are cool and, when<br>
> there is a community behind them, can be very powerful.<br>
><br>
> The squeak wiki has fallen out of favor. It used to be extremely<br>
> useful and was used a lot, it isn't used as much now. I don't think<br>
> that its problems have much to do with the platform it is running on.<br>
> While Mediawiki is certainly a very nice wiki, I think the problems of<br>
> the Squeak wiki would be unchanged if it were a Mediawiki.<br>
><br>
> So, what is wrong with the Squeak wiki? Why isn't it used as much?<br>
><br>
> In my opinion, the problem is that, from a documentation point of<br>
> view, there is no such thing as Squeak, rather, there are many<br>
> versions of Squeak. Although there are some things they all have in<br>
> common, they differ in some ways. If you make a separate wiki for<br>
> each version, you fragment your community and have no way of dealing<br>
> with duplicate pages. If you make a single wiki for them all, like<br>
> the Squeak wiki did, you end up with lots of information that is still<br>
> true for older versions but is no longer true for the latest. And<br>
> since a lot of people are still running the older versions, you don't<br>
> want to get rid of that information.<br>
><br>
> The new way for making documentation, which is to treat it as source<br>
> and to version it like source, solves these problems. It probably<br>
> introduces some problems of its own, but I think it is probably the<br>
> best alternative for creating good, long-lasting documentation for<br>
> Squeak.<br>
><br>
> -Ralph<br>
><br>
><br>
<br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br></div></div></div>