Taking a random page like
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Administration_Guide_Draft/NFS
I notice there are several obvious (and some not-so-obvious)
indications that the page is out of date. I think it would be a
good idea, and probably can be done automatically for the most
part, to have a clear indication of the state (score?) of each
wiki page to indicate how valid and up to date it probably is.
That indication should be a clear box at the top, and (if the page
is so out of date that it may be unusable) it could change the
background to (say) some shade of pink.
These are the things that could be checked automatically:
- uses a command or suggests installing a package that doesn't
exist in the latest release (other than in a section clearly
headed for "Older Versions")
- uses a command (like yum) that is deprecated/out-dated (that
might include any system-config-xyz options since they seem to
be disappearing?)
- does not have a section on testing the changes that have been
made (if the advice had included "edit" or "install" anywhere).
- the latest release of Fedora mentioned anywhere on the page is
over 2 years old.
There should also be a clear feedback method on each page (like
"This answered my question"/"This didn't tell me everything I
needed to know"/"This did not work for my system"/"I think it
could be done or said more simply"/"The page misses some important
(e.g. security) issue" plus an option to be contacted for more
details. That should also (after human checking) make it's way
into the page's "usefulness score". And there should be a ranked
list of pages needing "some love" with an indication of just how
in need of attention they are, so pages don't remain out of date
too long.
Related to that, and something that could (like Wikipedia, etc)
be automatically checked and made obvious to editors), there
should be some sections on most pages in a standard format, e.g.:
- a subsection "Documentation checked up to release nnn"
- a subsection "Older versions" describing differences for users
of earlier releases.
- instructions on what firewall changes are needed (if none say
so for any page mentioning installing anything or changing any
system option/file)
- a "For example" section
- a "Checking your changes" section
- a "Security implications" section
- a "Why you might not want to do this" section(!!), for example
saying there are other ways to do the same thing, or how much
performance hit you might get, or how things may freeze for a
while if another system is down, or security worries, etc. And
it shouldn't just list options (e.g. no_subtree_check) it should
either say why to choose/disable the important ones, and perhaps
link to some page with a discussion - perhaps forum-linked.
and ways to link to the pages that we can be pretty sure will
stay valid for a long time... e.g. if the page has a quick
explanation of how to allow SELinux or a firewall to allow the
changes to work, but you want to link to more detailed
instructions on another page, then that link should stay valid for
a long time. Maybe a way, even, for editors to say "this page
depends on this link", although it should be possible to work this
out automatically and warn any person editing editing the linked
page if it will break links from other pages.
Thoughts?
Mark Aitchison