[documentation] Contributors to docs need more public recognition

Mon May 26 16:51:11 UTC 2008

Nat,

maybe you mean this page:

http://drupal.org/handbook/updates

It is a rolling list of all updates.  I just found one page that
needed some more editing this way.  Note that this page *is* available
to anonymous users, so it's another, already-existing, mechanism to
see who's active in contributing to documentation but that could
potentially be made more prominent.  Note that the link for this is
already in the "Documentation team links" block that you may
optionally enable in your account.

-Peter

> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: catch <catch56 at googlemail.com>
> To: "A list for documentation writers" <documentation at drupal.org>
> Date: Mon, 26 May 2008 10:16:51 +0100
> Subject: Re: [documentation] Contributors to docs need more public recognition
> I haven't done a great deal of work on the handbook, but nearly all my edits are fixing typos and more recently 'archiving' old and out of date pages. In both of those cases I really, really don't want my username listed on the page next to those pages.
>
> Additionally, sometimes I'll see a page that looks completely wrong to me, but then I'll notice a greggles or a webchick attached to the revisions tab - and then realise they were only moving it's location or fixing a typo. So  I agree this opens up people to a lot of e-mail support, and making pages look more of less authoritative simply due to who's edited it or how many different people have.
>
> Having said all that, +1 to making the documentation contributors list more prominent. There's the 'most active developers' block on http://drupal.org/cvs which is fun to look at sometimes - probably wouldn't be that hard to have a 'documentation commit messages' page as well (maybe this already exists somewhere as recent changes?).
>
> Another thing with this - the cvs metrics that greggles does for core releases are always interesting to see - both who's contributing, and the distribution of patches. Individual cvs commit messages don't provide this so well (and never exactly match who contributed to a patch, and hardly ever the person who might have typed up the initial bug report) - but at an aggregate level they're good for seeing trends in the project. So I'm not so interested in attribution for individual pages (I guess people who really want that post documentation planet rather than in the handbook), but I am quite interested in getting some statistical data on documentation contributions in general.
>
> If you're reading this conversation, and haven't seen José's post on the Drupal.org redesign group [1], then this'd probably be worth looking at together with that. It's the sort of thing that'd be easier to implement on a separate subdomain.
>
> Nat
>
> 1. http://groups.drupal.org/node/10223
>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: "Frederik 'Freso' S. Olesen" <freso.dk at gmail.com>
> To: A list for documentation writers <documentation at drupal.org>
> Date: Mon, 26 May 2008 13:22:34 +0200
> Subject: Re: [documentation] Contributors to docs need more public recognition
> Steve Dondley skrev:
>>
>> Someone reverted some documentation I submitted at
>> http://drupal.org/node/262422 which removed a credit attributed to
>> myself and others for writing the documentation. I specifically placed
>> the credit in there to point out a bad oversight on the part of d.o.
>> which is that documentation writers receive little to no public
>> recognition for their work.
>
> <zap>
>
> For what it's worth, I somehow feel this falls into the "Don't allow names in source files — this creates unnecessary sense of ownership of a piece of code. Your version control system should keep track of who worked on it for credit/copyright reasons." category mentioned in http://youtube.com/watch?v=ZSFDm3UYkeE .
>
> Make the "documentation credits" page more prominent instead, make a "documenter of the month" or something instead. Don't write the credits directly to the page. Angie and Nancy (and others) have already provided plenty of reasons why not to.
>
> --
> Sincerely,
> Frederik 'Freso' S. Olesen <http://freso.dk/>
>
>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: "Frederik 'Freso' S. Olesen" <freso.dk at gmail.com>
> To: A list for documentation writers <documentation at drupal.org>
> Date: Mon, 26 May 2008 13:36:44 +0200
> Subject: Re: [documentation] Contributors to docs need more public recognition
> Steve Dondley skrev:
>>
>> On Mon, May 26, 2008 at 1:43 AM, Angela Byron <drupal-docs at webchick.net> wrote:
>>>
>>> Steve Dondley wrote:
>>>>
>>>> What's wrong with being as public as possible with patting people on
>>>> the back?
>>>
>>> Well, the things that I mentioned in my previous mails that were glossed
>>> over because of the ownership vs. maintainership clarification:
>>>
>>> - A movement toward individual ownership of *handbook pages*, rather
>>> than community ownership of *the handbook*.
>>> - Additional responsibility laid on the original author which currently
>>> doesn't exist.
>>> - A bulls-eye on the forehead of anyone who contributes documentation,
>>> for easy target practice from people seeking support.
>>> - Sticky questions about who "really" owns $page, when this often isn't
>>> clear or can even possibly be determined.
>>> - Additional administrative overhead for docs team members who could
>>> instead just be writing and improving the docs.
>>
>> I've said repeatedly I'm not attached to that proposal. I really don't
>> care about it so that effectively kills debate on it, doesn't it? [...]
>
> As I read it, all the above concerns apply just as well to your original proposal (and was meant as comments to your original proposal as well, if I'm not much mistaken) as they did/do to you "maintainer proposal". Stop using your dismissal of the "maintainer proposal" as an excuse to easily dismiss these (IMHO) valid points/issues.
>
>>>> Do you think giving people more credit will help Drupal find more
>>>> contributors? Yes or no? Because that's what this is really about.
>>>
>>> The answer is, I don't know. It's certainly not a motivating factor for
>>> me, personally, nor apparently for the 700+ existing handbook
>>> contributors who are apparently fine and dandy with the existing level
>>> of credit they receive.
>>
>> Well, I can only speculate, but I doubt you would be happy toiling
>> away on Drupal in perfect obscurity. How would have Lullabot ever
>> found you? As great as you are, I still think an ego lurks within. :)
>
> Even if she wasn't given credit, she was still obviously found. Why was she found? Probably because she was active. She isn't given credit in the code, she isn't given credit in the documentation (well, what I've found). She is given credit in the edit history (CVS messages, revisions) and as a participant of discussions (mailing list, IRC, issue queue) though, just as you are. And this was good enough for them to find her. (Sorry for speaking on your behalf, Angie, but I was already answering his mail, so I couldn't skip this bit. :p)
>
>>> However, I can clearly see that it's a
>>> motivating factor for you, which probably means that it's a motivating
>>> factor for some other people out there. Whether dumping a whole bunch of
>>> time and energy into creating some sort of credit system will pay off in
>>> a slew of new documentation contributions, I don't think anyone can say.
>>> I certainly don't think it's a no-brainer, though.
>>
>> I think the changes I proposed will not require "dumping a whole bunch
>> of time and energy." Just to create a simple block to list the
>> contributors to a document page? [...]
>
> It will require PHP/SQL to be written by coders and reviewed by Security Team and then implemented by d.o webmasters on d.o. My guess would be that this will take more than "an hour or two".
>
>>> I'd be more +1 towards something like Greg suggests, where we make the
>>> list of handbook maintainers more clear, or even going as silly as
>>> adding little badges next to the names of anyone who contributes to the
>>> handbook. Make the recognition around the act of contributing to the
>>> 'greater good' of the handbook itself, rather than personal glory around
>>> individual pages.
>>>
>>> However, until/unless someone steps up to spec out and code something,
>>> this is all just theoretical discussion. I'm going to get back to coding
>>> now. ;)
>>
>> All real progress starts with discussion. Please don't be so dismissive.
>
> See my first comments, please? :)
>
> --
> Sincerely,
> Frederik 'Freso' S. Olesen <http://freso.dk/>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> documentation mailing list
> documentation at drupal.org
> http://lists.drupal.org/listinfo/documentation
>
>