[wp-hackers] A New Codex?
r at schestowitz.com
Sun Nov 12 00:39:45 GMT 2006
___/ On Sat 11 Nov 2006 23:56:59 GMT, [ MarkR ] wrote : \___
> Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>> ___/ On Sat 11 Nov 2006 16:43:26 GMT, [ Mark Riley ] wrote : \___
>>> Craig wrote:
>>>> On 11/10/06, Dave W <dabbaking at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> <snip>Maybe there could be a
>>>>> policy instituted like Wikipedia has that some articles are locked down
>>>>> new users or someone would have to request a change to an important
>>>> This was attempted at the start of the Codex project. It was
>>>> determined by
>>>> some that such policies are counter to the open source ideology. Chaos
>>>> ensued and we have today, a set of documentation that is a quagmire.
>>> And if I recall correctly those that freaked out about this are no
>>> longer around. In - yell - out. That's how I remember it.
>> Scott (skippy)? Or is it David (smallmouse)?
> No it wasn't. The above are both great guys but the names aren't
> important now.
You're right. It just saddens me when people whom I once
spoke to suddenly disappear. Yes, I know that they blog, but
it's not quite the same. I hope that WP.org/Automattic can
keep its community together. Take Craig for example. He's
been around for so long, even after he had declared his
> The point was that even back then a sense of order and discipline was
> needed but the free-for-all has lead to what we have now. It may all be
> in there but it's hard to find.
My personal observation is that forums don't always address
questions directly, concisely, fully or even successfully.
Your search plugin for Firefox is helpful, I might as well
add. As for the Codex, well... that should/could have been
the golden reference (Holy Grail?), but experience suggests
that no documentation is perfect. Help files and their
indices in proprietary software are often saturated with
promotional language whilst user-contributed
information/knowledge can become political, grossly reused
and---in worst of circumstance---even mirrored or grafted
from someone's existing peer-reviewed text (sometimes for
shameless self promotion of some hypothesis).
I happen to be part of a project (NewAssignment) which leads
the way to so-called 'Open Source journalism'. These are all
questions that we are yet to address and investigate. How
does one generate answers and reviews that best reflect on
the truth (subjective in its own right)? Can an editor be
trusted? Can you assign a group to cover a story without
repeated rebuttals and fight over content and structure? Is
balance deserved under all circumstances? How can something
like a WordPress Wiki be handled in a democratic way (no
entry barriers) and still maintain and attain better
quality? It's quite a conundrum.
PS - Great to see you conceding the cloak of anonimity by the way...
Roy S. Schestowitz, Ph.D. Candidate in Medical Biophysics
http://Schestowitz.com | GNU/Linux | PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
http://othellomaster.com - GPL'd 3-D Othello
http://iuron.com - proposing a non-profit search engine
More information about the wp-hackers