Confirmed users
48
edits
User:Ckoehler/About wiki.mozilla.org: Difference between revisions
added comment
m (→Comments) |
(added comment) |
||
| Line 124: | Line 124: | ||
[[User:Gerv|Gerv]] ([[User talk:Gerv|talk]]) 05:51, 13 May 2014 (PDT) | [[User:Gerv|Gerv]] ([[User talk:Gerv|talk]]) 05:51, 13 May 2014 (PDT) | ||
: -- I think Gerv's distinction is really spot on: dynamic(wikimo) vs static (mdn) but both long-term-relevant. This is very important because the line between documentation in general and documentation for (new) contributors for a specific team is really thin, IMO. So the criteria dynamic and long-term-relevant seem a good way to guide the user in deciding. (The two cents of a new contributor who fought a bit to navigate the mare magnum of mozilla's documentation on contributing :)) | |||
[[User:Madamezou|Madamezou]] ([[User talk:Madamezou|talk]]) | |||
'''Joelle's comments:''' Does the About page need to be written in a specific tone or language? As a new contributor to WikiMo, the Purpose and How is the Wiki… statements still seem a bit opaque and removed. I wonder if we can incorporate the language used in Wiki Working Group meetings into this About. Last Wiki Working Group meeting the wiki was described as "the innards" of an organization. That term clarified a few questions I had about the scope of WikiMo. It implies what is already stated on the About page in a more inviting way: that the Wiki is a publicly available internal platform; that it makes public information neither designed nor intended for end-users. While I understand that "innards" might not connote the same meaning for some readers, can we consider a tone that is more inviting, yet pithy? | '''Joelle's comments:''' Does the About page need to be written in a specific tone or language? As a new contributor to WikiMo, the Purpose and How is the Wiki… statements still seem a bit opaque and removed. I wonder if we can incorporate the language used in Wiki Working Group meetings into this About. Last Wiki Working Group meeting the wiki was described as "the innards" of an organization. That term clarified a few questions I had about the scope of WikiMo. It implies what is already stated on the About page in a more inviting way: that the Wiki is a publicly available internal platform; that it makes public information neither designed nor intended for end-users. While I understand that "innards" might not connote the same meaning for some readers, can we consider a tone that is more inviting, yet pithy? | ||