[mythtv-users] Re:MythTV Help Website

[J. Donavan Stanley]

Erwin van der Koogh wrote:

>> Semi OT:  I've never seen a wiki that was worth a crap.  Care to share a
>> couple links?
>
>
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page> ;-)



As I mentioned later in my post, the encyclopedia type of wikis tend to 
be ok.    However defining terms and providing technical documentation 
are two separate things.

I'm not saying they're all crap, simply that I've not seem a decent one 
(beyond things like the wikipedia and everything(or is that even a 
wiki?)).  Wiki's are a great idea in theory I've just not seen technical 
ones live up to their potential.  Then again, I don't spend too much 
time surfing, and what time I do spend I spend on a handful of sites.


>> The only real irony is that the OP was offering yet another information
>> source to the project when he himself had not availed himself of the the
>> existing ones.
>
> Searching the mailing list archives or using google for an OSS project
>
> I have availed myself of the existing ones, and that didn't solve my 
> problems. What I think is the main problem is that as a newbie I have 
> no clue as to what is the real problem.. and that makes searching for 
> answers all the more difficult.

I was referring more to the wiki idea.  This comes up now and then and 
had one searched the archives one would have learned that the best 
course of action is "just do it".  If you *really* want a wiki and you 
can get enough quality information on it then great.  But talking about 
it on the list isn't going to get it off the ground.


>> of holes, wrong information and useless info that it's impossible to 
>> find
>> anything useful.  The exception to that has been the various 
>> "definition"
>> sites that have a very focused scopes.
>
> Again, I'd have to see a wiki that works but every one I've seen is full
>
> That's why I wouldn't suggest just a random everyone can do everything 
> and keep it focused.

So you're going to use editors?


> As per previous post, I think the most can be gained out of a 
> collection of "How I got it to work with these parameters". So that 
> others can look for stories with similar parameters can compare notes.

Hrm, I could see the use for some additional "howto" types of things.  
Maybe Jarrod would be open to accepting new sections (i.e. "for users of 
bttv cards click here")?


> How would one go about contributing a "How I got it to work" type 
> story and easily keep it up to date?

Well you *could* do something like Jarrod did.  Of course, if Jarrod had 
a section for non MPEG2 cards 99% of peoples problems could be solved.


>>> people' to hear that they have to learn, for example, XML before they
>>> can join in.
>>
>>
>> You do have a point.
>
> As coders, you just can't imagine how big a hurdle it is for 'ordinary

ugg I hate that term.


> A free for all wiki is usually a horrible idea, but if you can focus 
> it narrowly enough I think there's quite some potential in there. But 
> I also think that we are focussing too much of a particular 
> technology. If it could be solved by something (or someone) else that 
> would be great too.

Personly I'd LOVE to see the documentation expanded on, I've been 
working on some usage docs off and no but since I work, and have a 
family and have about a million code related things I'd like to get done 
in Myth docs take a back seat.


> So maybe the million dollar question is:
> "How can we make it easier for people to share their experiences with 
> the web?"

Perhaps a wiki is the way to go...  You'll never know until you try.  
You could also look into some of the automatic FAQ site stuff out there 
too...