Status quo of Mercurial wiki

[Adrian Buehlmann]

On 02.11.2009 16:20, Alexander Schatten wrote:
> First I would like to say, that I believe also, that the new website is a big improvement; it makes a much better impression. Particularly the "guide" is excellent. Also the Quickstart text is very snappy.
> 
> As I started with Mercurial, I found the information in the wiki ok, but rather confusing, partly redundant and not very well structured. A hodgepodge as most wikis tend to develop to over time. Most things could be found, but I believe the new guide is a big improvement for beginners.
> 
> Now to answer your question; there might be a surprisingly simple answer. Why would I as *beginner* or not-Mercurial expert want to edit a Wiki that I find confusing? I have not the skills to do so. You have to have a proper understanding of the information available to add new pages or change them. Plus: I do not want to fiddle around with the wiki, I want to get some proper initial information on the project (as is provided now). Later on, I might contribute to a Wiki as well.
> 
> In my opinion, a Wiki is not the right solution for a project website at all. Unless it is used poor-mans CMS for the development team. A wiki can *support* the documentation on a website (e.g. for a FAQ section), but the main part should be written by experts from the project or technical writers associated to the project.
> 
> Design and first impression also make a difference, of course. 
> 
> So I would say, from my point of view, a very good decision. Just one minor comment: The header-fonts e.g. in the guide look pretty bad, at least in my setup (OS X, Firefox). They are not sharp and look like bitmaps with low resolution and do not fit to the rest of the text. Why not use default fonts?
> 
> 

Quite interesting to know that the wiki is broken that much.

It was not my impression I had and thus I tried to update it
as much as I could. It was also nice to see lot's of people
fixing things while they were reading. And the spam was
surprisingly low. I kept reverting spam in the past.

I also don't understand why it was impossible to add
the guide to the wiki.

But obviously, people seem to now prefer editing
static pages by sending patches.

I don't.

In any case, I should probably stop wasting my time
on that horrible wiki then.