LinuxMCE Forums

General => Developers => Topic started by: Samme on September 22, 2007, 09:31:42 am

Title: Wiki-discussions
Post by: Samme on September 22, 2007, 09:31:42 am
As some of you might know, me and Trout (on the wiki) have signed up as admins for the wiki, we haven't got any admin-rights from Paul yet though.

Anyway, my thought is to make it the god damn best wiki there is  ;D

Any discussions regarding the wiki is welcome, and also check out the Community Portal, if you have a topic you want to discuss, do it on the talk page.

http://wiki.linuxmce.com/index.php/LinuxMCE_Wiki:Community_Portal (http://wiki.linuxmce.com/index.php/LinuxMCE_Wiki:Community_Portal)

Also, if someone is good at making templates for wiki, you're hired :)

/ Samme
Title: Re: Wiki-discussions
Post by: Zaerc on September 23, 2007, 02:19:10 pm
Speaking of the wiki, could someone get this "Trout" character off my back?  He seems to think it's necessary to take out things I add. 

Now I have plenty more things to add to the wiki, but not with people like that going around having the illusion that they need to police every addition I make (without even contributing anything of their own).  If this is how you guys plan on "administrating" the wiki, count me out.
Title: Re: Wiki-discussions
Post by: Samme on September 24, 2007, 07:33:52 am
What does he do?
Title: Re: Wiki-discussions
Post by: Zaerc on September 24, 2007, 11:33:43 am
http://wiki.linuxmce.org/index.php?title=Serial_Hack&action=history

Aparently I'm not allowed to add a suggestion the original author of the page asked for. 
Title: Re: Wiki-discussions
Post by: Samme on September 24, 2007, 01:17:59 pm
Well, I didn't really understand what you've been up to, but as I also wrote there, we should keep discussions and talk on the pages designated for it, not in the articles itself.
Title: Re: Wiki-discussions
Post by: Zaerc on September 24, 2007, 01:46:53 pm
Well, I didn't really understand what you've been up to, but as I also wrote there, we should keep discussions and talk on the pages designated for it, not in the articles itself.

I tried to make a suggestion to the original author of that page, which he asked for.  Somehow this had to be removed several times over.  But now all of a sudden there needs to be some personal rant adressed at me on that page. 

So thank you for pointing that out to me. ::)  I won't make the mistake of wasting my time on the wiki any further.

Title: Re: Wiki-discussions
Post by: Samme on September 24, 2007, 02:24:49 pm
Well, you should have written your suggestion on the page marked discussion, but that's not the point. I agree that Trout and others that were involved should discussed (or asked) you before deleting your work, if that was the case.

Please do not see this as a rant aimed at you, because it isn't and please do contribute at the wiki, we do need people like you, as well as people like me, Trout etc.

We're all needed in this project - and we must all be able to both give and take criticism, and last but not least we must all work together.
Title: Re: Wiki-discussions
Post by: Zaerc on September 24, 2007, 05:25:33 pm
Well, you should have written your suggestion on the page marked discussion

This is nothing more then your opinion, apart from that there are no formal guidelines.  The last thing anybody needs when contributing is a couple of wannabe wiki-admins breathing down his or her neck because something might not be exactly to their liking. 

And how exactly is this not aimed at me? 

What I should have done is not bothering, it's becoming pretty obvious that contributions aren't appreciated at all, unless of course it's some personal petty bullshit rant with some rediculous alternative just to prove some totally irrelevant point:  http://wiki.linuxmce.org/index.php?title=Serial_Hack&oldid=5606

Great to see the wiki go to hell like this, keep up the good work.  In fact I think we need more people who have nothing to contribute except for screwing up other peoples contributions.  Nothing like "solving" things with the delete button, what an awesome way to "work together".  Now excuse me if I don't feel like holding hands and singing kumbaya.

Title: Re: Wiki-discussions
Post by: Samme on September 24, 2007, 06:57:55 pm
Well, if that's the way you want it, it's up to you  :-(

But I do hope you will reconsider cause the wiki really needs devoted people like you.

Speaking of guidelines, there are general guidelines how you edit a wiki and if we stick to them we'll be more productive in the end instead of arguing.
Title: Re: Wiki-discussions
Post by: Zaerc on September 25, 2007, 08:15:07 am
So somebody adds this (http://wiki.linuxmce.org/index.php?title=Serial_Hack&oldid=5606) to a wiki page: ::)

Quote
Let's all join in the mis-understanding of Wiki and this page. How do you want to edit a file today?

I think this would be cool.

perl -e 'print "#!/bin/bash\n\ntree -fi /dev | grep ttyS\ntree -fi /dev | grep ttyUSB"' > /usr/pluto/bin/ListSerialPorts.sh

What do you all think about that coolness? It's all on a single line so it can be edited unlike the Zaerc version. Perl is widespread and easy to type. Probably it could just be copied and pasted. Wow that's sweet.

Anyway, I doubt that AVJohn was asking for contributions as to how to edit a dang file. Probably, since the page is called "Serial Hack", he was asking if there was a better way to fix the serial situation, rather than editing a file. But that's no matter, I think that everyone should become smarter for reading this blog on the main page. Is't it great!

Cheers to all!

Zaerc - I've added content, so you should feel good about that. I know that in your mind all additions are good additions and deserve a place on a Wiki page. Removing blather like this would be horrific so I'm sure this will stay here for a long time.

Trout 07:10, 23 September 2007 (MST)

And then you feel the need to lecture me like this (http://wiki.linuxmce.org/index.php/Talk:Serial_Hack): ???
Quote
Keep the articles clean and use the discussion-pages for...ahh, discussions!

Well, if that's the way you want it, good luck "working" together, you guys make such a cute couple.  :P
Title: Re: Wiki-discussions
Post by: Samme on September 25, 2007, 11:32:24 am
I just said that we should keep the talk where it obviously belongs.

This is my last post regarding this topic as it leads no further.
Title: Re: Wiki-discussions
Post by: Zaerc on September 25, 2007, 02:51:48 pm
I just said that we should keep the talk where it obviously belongs.

This is my last post regarding this topic as it leads no further.

So now that it's becoming clear that you actually prefer to encourage this kind of behavior (http://wiki.linuxmce.org/index.php?title=Serial_Hack&oldid=5606), you run off with your tail between your legs.  Gee what a surprise.  ::)
Title: Re: Wiki-discussions
Post by: Hagen on September 26, 2007, 11:05:12 am
I was getting ready to put some info into the Wiki, but I have to agree with Zaerk...
WTF is happening?!

Rogue "admins" have no place on a wiki.

I vote for Zaerc as admin!
Title: Re: Wiki-discussions
Post by: Zaerc on September 26, 2007, 01:51:46 pm
Thanks for your support it means a lot to me, aparently nobody else cares about the wiki. 

But the last thing I want to be is an admin, and I shouldn't have to be in order to make small additions without getting keelhauled like that.  Although it would be nice to have somebody that is accountable instead of encouraging people to deface pages so they can "prove a point".
Title: Re: Wiki-discussions
Post by: Hagen on September 26, 2007, 02:10:41 pm
This kind of thing is excactly what made me contact you about the Wiki some time ago.
I do user documentation for a living, but still I am a bit worried about "insiders" reactions to my writing.
And deleting constructive input is what I fear the most.
What is constructive input, and who should be the judge of that?

For any and all user documentation the phrase "less is more" goes a long way.
For "more" info dig deeper, but what is really missing from the wiki is a "quick reference guide" on how to setup, install (with keyboard shortcuts for video card outputs, resolutions and the "hold the left shift after the beeps" functions). A sort of "readme.txt". And not admins for the sake of being admins...
I have unfortunately taken on another (paid) evening job this week and the next, but that is something I would love to start with when I have time.
Title: Re: Wiki-discussions
Post by: hobbes487 on September 26, 2007, 06:16:23 pm
I must say I agree with Zearc is this matter as well.  All I see is Zaerc trying to be helpful by adding a comment to a wiki page (which the author asked for), and then this Trout character decided to come along and attack Zaerc.  If you want to be an admin of the wiki you should behave in a professional manner and not attack people publicly on a wiki page.  If you disagree with a post you should PM the author about removing it, not publicly berating him/her.

This kind of activity definately discourages me from making any contributions to the wiki.  Also, I find it interesting that the person who is telling Zaerc his contributions are wrong has a grand total of 14 posts and 6 of them are from this thread.  Compare this to Zaerc's 426 and I think we can see who is giving better contributions to linuxMCE.  Zaerc has help me out with a comment on more than one occasion.
Title: Re: Wiki-discussions
Post by: avajon on September 26, 2007, 06:26:12 pm
sure, we need people like Zearc (you did a grea job and you helped me with a lot of post's i read from you)

BUT we also need people like Trout! I contributed yesterday something about EIB on the wiki and he corrected all my mistakes (my english is sooooo bad). We need people like him, they do the stuff that new users find a good wiki.

So the only thing i can say is:

THANK YOU TO Zearc and Trout!

lg
avajon
Title: Re: Wiki-discussions
Post by: bulek on September 26, 2007, 08:32:10 pm
sure, we need people like Zearc (you did a grea job and you helped me with a lot of post's i read from you)

BUT we also need people like Trout! I contributed yesterday something about EIB on the wiki and he corrected all my mistakes (my english is sooooo bad). We need people like him, they do the stuff that new users find a good wiki.

So the only thing i can say is:

THANK YOU TO Zearc and Trout!

lg
avajon


Couldn't agree more. We need both, Wiki administrators, please be more gentle, I'm also one of the contributors who don't see such damage if some comment is left on page. I do it mostly cause it can remind me or anyone other that some part needs to be worked on....

Regards,

Bulek.

Title: Re: Wiki-discussions
Post by: sandos on September 26, 2007, 09:30:55 pm
Not to belittle Zaercs work, but I have to disagree with the others: I don't think he is fit as an admin. Why? Because he seems to be a drama queen!

Now why the f*ck did you need to rehash this small, insignificant bullshit issue over and over? Ever heard of "letting go" ? Did the world end because of the particular admins' behaviour? No. Unselfishness, ability to forgive others, ability to actually acknowledge that people are never ever perfect beings are very important when being an admin. You are going to meet people having trouble cooperating with anybody, and you should be able to deal with it a bit more gracefully than in this case.

How would I have handled the situation, or seen someone else handle it? Firstly, not to start a semi-flamewar on the forum over this issue. Secondly, to move the damn text to the talk-page! Now it might sound like I think you should do nothing in a situation like this, thats wrong. I just don't think the forum is the right venue, and the proper tone wasn't used. I mean, read his first post in this thread? Does it sound nuanced? Like he has any understanding for the admins' behavioir at all?


Now this is _only_ impressions from this thread, and reading the wiki page being discussed. I don't know much about Zaerc's other work, but I'm sure it has been fine. Sorru if I am missing something bigger behind the scenes (particulary stuff in the Wiki).

Note too that I don't necessarily think the admin did the right thing, but thats another story...
Title: Re: Wiki-discussions
Post by: Zaerc on September 26, 2007, 10:48:44 pm
Not to belittle Zaercs work, but I have to disagree with the others: I don't think he is fit as an admin. Why? Because he seems to be a drama queen!

Now why the f*ck did you need to rehash this small, insignificant bullshit issue over and over? Ever heard of "letting go" ? Did the world end because of the particular admins' behaviour? No. Unselfishness, ability to forgive others, ability to actually acknowledge that people are never ever perfect beings are very important when being an admin. You are going to meet people having trouble cooperating with anybody, and you should be able to deal with it a bit more gracefully than in this case.

How would I have handled the situation, or seen someone else handle it? Firstly, not to start a semi-flamewar on the forum over this issue. Secondly, to move the damn text to the talk-page! Now it might sound like I think you should do nothing in a situation like this, thats wrong. I just don't think the forum is the right venue, and the proper tone wasn't used. I mean, read his first post in this thread? Does it sound nuanced? Like he has any understanding for the admins' behavioir at all?


Now this is _only_ impressions from this thread, and reading the wiki page being discussed. I don't know much about Zaerc's other work, but I'm sure it has been fine. Sorru if I am missing something bigger behind the scenes (particulary stuff in the Wiki).

Note too that I don't necessarily think the admin did the right thing, but thats another story...

Maybe you should read this thread again, I am in no way interested in becoming an admin of anything. 

To answer your rather rude and malinformed question, I have added a significant amount of pages to the wiki, in contrary to the two other persons involved.  This is a big deal to me because there are very few other people actually contributing usefull information, for example I have added three of the five mainboards currently in the wiki (one of which I don't even own), but when people start trampeling over what little is actually added because they feel something is not in the correct place then there will be even fewer people contributing.  Apart from that you will find a huge number of pages with comments on them, that is how the wiki grows, just because two people decided that this is not acceptable (without any form of discussion) does not make it necessarily so.

In this particular case my addition was banished to the talk page, I did not agree and moved it back, as far as I'm concerned that should have been the end of it.  There was no need to move that over and over again, then delete it entirely and when that didn't work either to deface the page with a rant adressed to me. 

The baffling thing is that that was aparently the "right" thing to do, and now here you are telling me I'm wrong for making a fuss about it.  I guess I should have gone around defacing other wiki pages instead to "prove my point".  So your opinion has been noted, thanks for judging me without even knowing what this is about, it will be valued accordingly.  And what the "wiki-admin" did or didn't do is very much part of this story, funny how you'd like to overlook that. 

NB. If you don't have the guts to spell "fuck" properly, then maybe you shouldn't use the word at all.
Title: Re: Wiki-discussions
Post by: Hagen on September 26, 2007, 11:00:54 pm
Now this is _only_ impressions from this thread, and reading the wiki page being discussed. I don't know much about Zaerc's other work, but I'm sure it has been fine.
Zaerk is the guy that has helped us all from the start with helpful and knowledgeable answers, along with Totallymax and a couple of others.
When I help people here it is only by quoting Zaerk and total most of the times...
I hadn't noticed "Trout" here until he and Samme decided they should run the Wiki...
Now I know who's input I value the most, I allready said that, but here is the reason for it.
Title: Re: Wiki-discussions
Post by: chewi on September 27, 2007, 02:38:30 pm
I don't want to talk about who started and who continued or who missbehaved and I also think it does not really matter... What matters is the outcome...
I would suggest, that the two of you stay out of each others way for a while to cool down and maybe you will both realize if or what in your behavior might have been imperfect. And in case, you want to discuss it with each other, or with me, please contact by private message or in the guestbook-part of my wiki-home or lets meet in IRC...

Hoping for a good cooperation in the future and to read a lot more from both of you...

Best regards, Chewi

Crosspost from the Wiki-Discussion-Page:
Quote
Hi, i took the liberty to add a new page to the wiki Editing_Text where I put the tricks the two of you offered.
And I linked to the new page from the appropriate passage within the article...
I hope, this will end the fight... And I hope I will read a lot from both of you on this wiki in the future.
Best Regards, Chewi
Title: Re: Wiki-discussions
Post by: Zaerc on September 27, 2007, 03:39:38 pm
This kind of thing is excactly what made me contact you about the Wiki some time ago.
I do user documentation for a living, but still I am a bit worried about "insiders" reactions to my writing.
And deleting constructive input is what I fear the most.
What is constructive input, and who should be the judge of that?

For any and all user documentation the phrase "less is more" goes a long way.
For "more" info dig deeper, but what is really missing from the wiki is a "quick reference guide" on how to setup, install (with keyboard shortcuts for video card outputs, resolutions and the "hold the left shift after the beeps" functions). A sort of "readme.txt". And not admins for the sake of being admins...
I have unfortunately taken on another (paid) evening job this week and the next, but that is something I would love to start with when I have time.

First of all I added that remark there as a suggestion, not to give lessons on editing text files, that is what trout turned it into when he was trying "to make a point".

Secondly your edit was right followed by an edit by Trout, removing a part added by the original author that obviously doesn't fit his agenda.  This clearly proves to me that this has changed absolutely nothing, there is no reasoning, no discussion and no accountability.  So I guess while he has made little to no actual contributions himself he still thinks he is the judge of what is worthy of being in the wiki or not, and I find that totally unacceptable.

So yeah I will stay out of his way by simply keeping away from the wiki, I'll either find another place that is not infested with people like him, or probably keep my experience to myself like just about everyone else around here.  Will be a bit of a shame to see my other contributions getting ripped to shreds by the correctness police but such is life.

I do appreciate your effort though, thanks, and it's good to see that at least some people care.
Title: Re: Wiki-discussions
Post by: Hagen on September 27, 2007, 03:53:14 pm
Secondly your edit was right followed by an edit by Trout, removing a part added by the original author that obviously doesn't fit his agenda.  This clearly proves to me that this has changed absolutely nothing, there is no reasoning, no discussion and no accountability. 
Lol, is this guy (Trout) for real?

Perhaps the Wiki needs structure, but harshly deleting content is not the same as structuring it?!
Title: Re: Wiki-discussions
Post by: Hagen on September 27, 2007, 04:04:46 pm
I do like the links posted by Rwilson on the talk page
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines#Behavior_that_is_unacceptable
Clearly Trout hasn't read up on official Wiki policy.
I am certain that Paul wouldn't want LMCE to be associated with such behaviour either.
Title: Re: Wiki-discussions
Post by: Samme on September 28, 2007, 07:41:37 am
Also, I find it interesting that the person who is telling Zaerc his contributions are wrong has a grand total of 14 posts and 6 of them are from this thread.  Compare this to Zaerc's 426 and I think we can see who is giving better contributions to linuxMCE.  Zaerc has help me out with a comment on more than one occasion.

14 posts I might have, I don't know, but what does that have to do with anything? I'm a new user and I as everyone else here want to contribute to the project and since there was no admin for the wiki i e-mailed Paul and volunteered. My intention with this has never been or will be to be some kind of "wiki-admin-dictator" even if some of you might think that.

And about the "Zaerc vs. Trout" case, I agree with Trout on the matter that we should keep talk/discussions on the pages that are there for it. But then I can also agree that Trout maybe should'nt have made such comments etc about Zaercs contribution on the particular page.

I feel this thing got bigger then it has to be and I'm sorry for that - again this was not my intention.
Title: Re: Wiki-discussions
Post by: Hagen on September 28, 2007, 08:49:11 am
My intention with this has never been or will be to be some kind of "wiki-admin-dictator" even if some of you might think that.

I feel this thing got bigger then it has to be and I'm sorry for that - again this was not my intention.
I don't really think anyone has doubted your intentions, but Trout suddenly became the focus after his behaviour towards one of the most active participants, and then anyone that tried to immediate .
Being less active (seemingly) on the forum shouldn't really matter, I agree, as the "work" is quite different. Paul himself is not active on the forum, yet people respect the work that he does immensely. Same for the Wiki.

Title: Re: Wiki-discussions
Post by: Zaerc on September 28, 2007, 12:46:48 pm
14 posts I might have, I don't know, but what does that have to do with anything? I'm a new user and I as everyone else here want to contribute to the project and since there was no admin for the wiki i e-mailed Paul and volunteered. My intention with this has never been or will be to be some kind of "wiki-admin-dictator" even if some of you might think that.

And about the "Zaerc vs. Trout" case, I agree with Trout on the matter that we should keep talk/discussions on the pages that are there for it. But then I can also agree that Trout maybe should'nt have made such comments etc about Zaercs contribution on the particular page.

I feel this thing got bigger then it has to be and I'm sorry for that - again this was not my intention.

The problem I have with this is that you condem me for making a valid contribution, but when someone defaces that same page to "prove a point" you don't say a word.

If you are new, then why don't you start by adding your own experience?  Instead you choose to make policy after the facts and use that to alienate people who actually contribute (instead of rearranging everything over and over without any regard of what the people were doing before you came along). 

Personally I think it's perfectly acceptable to leave a comment on a page, unless it is spam (or sour grapes nonsense like what we've seen in this instance).  In fact I always hope people will leave comments on the things I write, that helps me and everyone else improve the page.  Putting them on the talk page is simply not an option because they won't be noticed.  Most of my pages have started out being my personal blog, over time they get refined to be more general, the last thing we need is people going around and removing that, just because they can't find anything better to do.

But since you and "Trout" already agreed that this doesn't suit your ideas of what is "right", I guess it's now "official" policy to go around and remove anything that may (or may not) be usefull to others at your leasure.  And when I try to discuss this, all you can say is "you were wrong and now I don't want to talk about it anymore".  I think if you seriously want to be the wiki-admin then you're going to have to do a lot better then that, and not simply walk away when there is a dispute eventhough you side with the other party.

Let's leave Paul out of this, he has got enough issues on his mind already.  But I think he made you admin to deal with the spammers, not alienate the people contributing with rediculous policy.
Title: Re: Wiki-discussions
Post by: Samme on September 28, 2007, 05:04:38 pm
First of all, yes, we'll leave Paul alone, I know too he's got his hands full, it was just an explanation how/why I became admin.

Honestly I don't feel that I've condemned you and/or your contributions, and about Trout defacing the same page, my opinion is that he should have mentioned it either on your talk page or the article's itself.

Maybe I was wrong, I'm not perfect, neither are anyone of all us hanging around here.

And also, about the comments you made on the page, maybe they belong there, I don't think so, Trout doesn't think so...but many seem to think so...so to hopefully put an end to this, we have a vote.

Question: Should a "Comment"-section be allowed on the article-pages or should comment's be left on the talk page?

1. Yes, it should be allowed.
2. No, keep it on the talk page.

This is just a suggestion - I'm all for democracy!

Say what you think, if you like it, we put up a vote on the wiki.

I hope we eventually all can get along - after all we have the same goal :)

Now it's Friday and I just got home from work, so anyway...now I'll have myself a drink, so please excuse me if I'm not around under the evening.

/ Samme
Title: Re: Wiki-discussions
Post by: Zaerc on September 29, 2007, 05:10:47 pm

What you and Trout fail to realize is how lucky we are that a few people even contribute at all.

So I have a better idea, why don't we leave it up to the people that actually bother to take their time and effort to make contributions?  And then try not to hinder them to much with all sorts of restrictions and regulations.  A little courtesy goes a long way and the success of this community largely depends on people adding to the wiki. 

This is not the wikipedia, and it would be stupid to expect people to read a whole rulebook before making an edit.  It is already a pretty big step for most people to take, by making policy like this you will only scare them away more.  These pages are in a constant state of development, having comments on them is a natural part of the process.  And we desperately need more information and experience, way more then we need all the pages to be "clean".

Vandalism in my opinion should always be condemned, no matter how much you agree with the point they are trying to make.  The message you have been sending here is that it's ok to put a rant somewhere and then you will come in as the wiki admin and condemn the person the rant is addressed to, I think that is a very dangerous prescedent. 

I added something, somebody else doesn't agree and (re-)moves it, I don't agree and move it back.  That should of been the end of this.  The rest could have been discussed on the talk page.  I don't see any need for somebody (who had nothing to add to that page in the first place) to keep messing with it just because they don't think it's "worthy", "right" or would like to make some rules.  Again we need more information, not less.  Should it ever become to much, outdated, or even turn out to be plain wrong then it can always be split up, updated or (re-)moved.  The wiki is not about what I want, what you want or what Trout wants, it is about what we as a community need.

A better idea would be to set some general guidlines, but more in the form of suggestions and not as hard rules that some people will feel compelled to enforce at any cost.

Now that we're discussing these things I'm feeling confident we can work something out that is acceptable for all of us.  Like you said in the end we're all doing our best to make the most out of the wiki, I guess we just need to figure out how to avoid stepping on each others toes more then necessary.  And to be honest, apart from this incident, I'm glad you guys put in your time and effort, even if I don't always agree. 

Then again, there are plenty of things in the wiki I don't agree with, that doesn't mean they are wrong or even need to be changed.  And certainly not just because I have a high post count or have added a few pages here and there.  I didn't have that when I started out, nobody does.  But had this happened then, I would probably just simply have decided to quietly walk away.  In this stage we simply cannot afford to lose even a single serious contribution, and no amount of reorganizing and spell-checking (which are also important!) can make up for that.

But it does however strike me as very odd that this Trout person (who is obviously in the middle of this) has nothing to say for himself.  And it makes me wonder why people that aparently have so little interest in this community should dictate how the wiki must be strictly maintained.

Sorry for the long post, I didn't really mean for this to be so much of a lecture.  I'm certainly not the posterboy for encouraging people, let me be the first to admit that, but I will try to be a bit less confrontational (or as some people like to say "hostile").  Anyway, thanks for listening and have a good weekend.

Title: Re: Wiki-discussions
Post by: chewi on October 01, 2007, 10:05:46 am
The vote:
I vote for "1. Comments allowed":
But not in a sense, where they replace the discussions-section or act as forum or chat, but in a way to encourage people who do not have the time, or not the will to actually rewrite the whole article. Or to address people who are not sure, if their solution and/or knowledge is sophisticated enough to replace the article itself. Or to add corrections, that people are not sure about yet. See this (http://wiki.linuxmce.org/index.php?title=Asterisk_sipgate&diff=prev&oldid=5527) for an example.
Those comments should or course be content, not discussions, oppinions or commendation. The latter belong on the discussions page.

The rest:
I do appreciate the work, of Zaerc, Sammy and Trout !
Zaerc for forwarding this knowledge to the world and adding contents. Sammy for taking the responsability for the wiki, a job nobody else wanted as it is always unthankful and Trout for his support to Sammy in (re-)organizing the wiki.
There cannot be a wiki without content, but all the content in the world is useless if it is not structured. Both are problems within the wiki, as I see it.

My suggestion is, that it might be a good idea to first address those problems large-scale, meaning that:
- (for now) any content (in the meaning of knowledge) is good content. Whatever changes are made, they should always have the goal to not reduce the content within the wiki. We may restructure it, split page, unite pages with redudant knowledge, but never diminish, what is in the wiki.
- Re-organization of the global structure is a number 1 priority. The current way to add cathegories, form new and better contentlists, cross-reference article is just as important as the content itself, but it should honor the first point.
- Reformatting the pages to use the full capacity of the wiki is also as important. It makes additions way easier. But my oppinion is, that the previous 2 points have a higher weight, when being in conflict.

I thank all three of you for your devotion and for everything you're doing, which is propably more, than I will ever contribute, but I wanted to give you my impression on the topic.

I am sorry for the length of this posting and open for comments...

Best regards, Chewi

Edit: Typo-nonsense... ;)