[pmwiki-users] PmW Mag?
crisses at kinhost.org
Tue Sep 19 13:15:51 CDT 2006
On Sep 19, 2006, at 1:21 PM, The Editor wrote:
> Hey, this is an exciting idea! I love it. PmMag could include
> articles such as
> 1) comparing and contrasting various, similar recipes
> 2) why I chose PmWiki, or case studies
> 3) best practices for things like farms, security, etc.
> 4) major new releases/code changes, why, what they do
Interviews of wiki sites: why they chose PmWiki -- best & worst
experiences with it -- will it fit their needs for the forseeable
future -- would they use it again?
bios/interviews of wiki author(s) and cookbook authors -- how many
sites are you running? what made you choose PmWiki? What made you
contribute? Are you working on any more contributions?
Definitely case studies:
--look at the site, which recipes did you use, show off pages and
explain how the code on the back works.
> I can see how such articles could be extremely useful to a new
> coder--if they were archived and searchable. In fact these would
> probably be the best place to look to see if something recent has been
> Questions though:
> How would these articles be submitted?
> How would they be reviewed?
> Would they be editable like other wiki pages?
My opinion (TM?):
submit via wiki
review via discussion page
editable -- no -- the author can make editorial comments or revisions
on the page later? this reserves the individual rather than
editorial "we" voice, and allows it to be more person(able) than most
wiki pages are - i.e. the opposite of the Wikipedia WE. Sheesh -- we
can be OPINIONATED :) with disclaimer (the views are the views of
the author, not the PmWiki community or PM.) [technically article
pages could go either way -- the group can write/edit pages, and
individuals can write/edit pages. Why not? I did that on
Kinhost.org -- the main article/chapters of the "book" are editorial
we. People can contribute self-authored pieces from a private group
to the pubilc manual by passwording the edit but adding the page with
an author credit to the main table of contents.]
The author is responsible to correct typos and all opinions are
correct as long as they're not abusive. We could have a small
privileged editing staff for correcting typos and making sure the
pages don't have abusive contributions?
> The thing that makes a magazine useful is the editorial process. It
> seems some sort of process would need to be developed whereby articles
> could be submitted, reviewed and discussed (on the mail list?), once a
> consensus version is drafted, published. Then, they should be
> published in some sort of permanent form--though editing might be
> desirable for updating articles.
> One concern is adding all these task to Pm's already busy plate.
> Others would have to step up to the plate.
I think other than interviewing PM for the flagship issue (*Grins*)
it's not on his plate at all. We set up an area of the wiki -- a new
group -- to start with. We can use the Drafts recipe, maybe, or self-
edit attr's of pages to deny reading, when ready, give out the read
password for a review. Review is on the associate Discussion page.
When a sufficient #articles are ready, wikitrail/pagelist them
together into a "bound" magazine -- PDF them if desired.
I'm up for interviewing someone, PM or being interviewed for an article.
More information about the pmwiki-users