Re: [Fwd: Re: really attracting developers]

[Nikolaus Waxweiler]

> No, it shouldn't.  There are some things that a wiki is suboptimal for,
> the wiki has only recently seen sustained activity and the wiki was used
> for the most recent defacement and spammings.

What do you have in mind for which the wiki is suboptimal? Projects like  
Etoile and Beep Media Player use a wiki as their homepage and  
http://amarok.kde.org is mainly a front-end to it.

And as I already said earlier, the spamming can be limited. Yes, there's  
the issue of defacement, but it won't happen that often if the software is  
kept up to date. Also, the wiki activity probably amounts to more than  
what the current homepage has seen recently.

One alternative to having a wiki is having a well-maintained  
non-wiki-website, which is hard if you have got few people to do it. If I  
was Fedor or any other admin, I wouldn't just give anyone write-access.  
Another alternative would be having a CMS, but this wouldn't be much  
different, since you have to give people permission manually.

I personally like the approach of Amarok. Have the main site be a  
bare-bones page with the most relevant stuff on it and link to the wiki  
for everything else.

> autogsdoc and texinfo remain the recommended ways to create manuals,
> but html (however created) would also be fine for linking from
> www.gnustep.org.  If you can get it published in the community press,
> then that also helps to introduce new people to GNUstep.  Please email
> link suggestions to webmasters@gnustep.org

I wasn't talking about autogsdoc. I'm not totally against guides written  
in texinfo, but then you as the writer have the problem of maintaining it.  
New people are turned off by old and/or incomplete information. Besides,  
texinfo isn't the best format for linking to relevant information  
somewhere else, something a wiki does [[better]].