granted that I've looked at the things he has accomplished. Personally, I like to see the zeal he's putting into this, and am amazed at how much he has accomplished. I've had private conversations with most of the people actively involved.įoxbunny is a phenomenal wiki editor, he's gone ahead and done the work of a dozen people, he's tried to get input on the task, but you're just knocking him around for it. Who has spoken to who about what the other Arch sites have done? I do commend your enthusiasm, I'd just like to see you succeed! I'm not being critical for the sake of it, just trying to reflect the layman's view of what you are currently doing. Is anyone in charge of this process? Has anyone identified a goal? Jesus, has anyone even specifically identified the problems?! Because it looks to me like we're discussing something that is already happening - is this the discussion period or the getting it done period? Are you planning a big day to do the major move? Who's currently doing things? Who has spoken to who about what the other Arch sites have done? What I have seen is loads of poorly concieved forum threads about your indecision. Maybe it's me but I haven't seen a document entitled: "What we need to do to fix the wiki!" Nor have I seen any requests for volunteers. Sorry if I'm not convinced to jump in and roll my sleeves up. Personally, I grew a bit tired of it at the moment, and will take a few days off the page move project, to deal with some other issues, so you are more than welcome to help.Įrm.well, you made a rod for your own back then, eh? Basically what you have said is that what you have decided to do is loads of work and so people should help you do it. How about you move one section of the obsolete HOWTOs category each day, and then say if the MediaWiki is a good piece of software? It's not too much work, I promise. The main problem of ArchWiki is NOT that it looks the way it looks (it doesn't look too bad either). DokuWiki, OTOH, stores pages as files and directories, so we can easily make such lists using conventional techniques. For 8 people, it's just 3 days.Īnyway, why can't we do all this? Even though it seems possible to pull off, the ArchWiki doesn't offer anything that would help us find pages that need moving, and comile a list of pages to hand out to volunteers. If the job was to be done by 16 people, it would take 2 days. If each person was to move 20 pages, it would take 35 people and just one day to move all pages to appropriate places using current move techniques.
If each of you was to move 14 pages, it would take 75 people. So, if each of you were to move only 7 pages, it would take at most 150 people to move all the pages. Furthermore, if a single person was to do just 7 edits a day, entire ArchWiki could be restructured in 100 to 150 days. It takes roughly 100 to 150 days to move the wiki, provided that all 6.68 edits are moves.
ArchWiki is averaging 6.68 edits a day (which is not the case most of the time). There are 703 pages that are probably legitimate content pagesĪbout, say, 700 to 1000 articles to move, give or take a few hundreds.
0 kommentar(er)
