+1

On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 4:13 AM, Ralph Johnson <johnson at cs.uiuc.edu> wrote:

> I've used lots of wikis over the years, starting with the original
> c2.com wiki.    While each had its unique features that made it
> interesting, basically they were all good.  Wikis are cool and, when
> there is a community behind them, can be very powerful.
>
> The squeak wiki has fallen out of favor.  It used to be extremely
> useful and was used a lot, it isn't used as much now.  I don't think
> that its problems have much to do with the platform it is running on.
> While Mediawiki is certainly a very nice wiki, I think the problems of
> the Squeak wiki would be unchanged if it were a Mediawiki.
>
> So, what is wrong with the Squeak wiki?  Why isn't it used as much?
>
> In my opinion, the problem is that, from a documentation point of
> view, there is no such thing as Squeak, rather, there are many
> versions of Squeak.  Although there are some things they all have in
> common, they differ in some ways.  If you make a separate wiki for
> each version, you fragment your community and have no way of dealing
> with duplicate pages.  If you make a single wiki for them all, like
> the Squeak wiki did, you end up with lots of information that is still
> true for older versions but is no longer true for the latest.  And
> since a lot of people are still running the older versions, you don't
> want to get rid of that information.
>
> The new way for making documentation, which is to treat it as source
> and to version it like source, solves these problems.  It probably
> introduces some problems of its own, but I think it is probably the
> best alternative for creating good, long-lasting documentation for
> Squeak.
>
> -Ralph
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/pipermail/squeak-dev/attachments/20100616/8fa6903d/attachment.htm