Knowledge Base changes: Difference between revisions

From MozillaZine Knowledge Base
Jump to navigationJump to search
No edit summary
 
(332 intermediate revisions by 12 users not shown)
Line 4: Line 4:
*It would be nice to have a place where new editors can introduce themselves and meet existing editors.
*It would be nice to have a place where new editors can introduce themselves and meet existing editors.
*It would be good to allow new editors to safely propose content changes (minor or major) prior to implementing them.
*It would be good to allow new editors to safely propose content changes (minor or major) prior to implementing them.
*It would be good to have a central location to discuss the style, content and organisation of this Knowledge Base. (Some of the ideas in [[Talk:Knowledge Base]] can be migrated here, leaving that page solely for discussion of the front page article itself.
*It would be good to have a central location to discuss the style, content and organization of this Knowledge Base. (Some of the ideas in [[Talk:Knowledge Base]] can be migrated here, leaving that page solely for discussion of the front page article itself.
*This page was an attempt to address incidents that have occured on the KB where some groups of editors have been unaware of major changes being made by other groups of editors.
*This page was an attempt to address incidents that have occurred on the KB where some groups of editors have been unaware of major changes being made by other groups of editors.


This page is the primary place to ''announce'' new suggestions. Whenever possible, issues should be ''discussed'' in a more appropriate place, such as the discussion page of the article or category that the suggestion affects.
This page is the primary place to ''announce'' new suggestions. Whenever possible, issues should be ''discussed'' in a more appropriate place, such as the discussion page of the article or category that the suggestion affects. Once suggestions are resolved, they are moved to [[Knowledge Base changes/Archive]].


Once suggestions are resolved, they are moved to [[Knowledge Base changes/Archive]].
You can request somebody create an article at [[Requested articles]] .


==Welcome to new editors==
==Copyright/License problems==
Hello! Great to have you here. Please add a comment here :-)
I suggest we think about adding a short "Copyright/License problems" section in [[Rules_and_guidelines]] that sets peoples expectations on what they can legitimately copy/modify. I'm splitting this out as a separate topic from "Using external sources and references in KB articles". Please discuss this at [[Talk:Rules_and_guidelines]] . [[User:Tanstaafl|Tanstaafl]] 08:32, 20 January 2008 (UTC)


* Hello Knowledge Base! FJ reporting to duty! *bows at all* [[User:FatJohn|FatJohn]] 11:30, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
Roland Tanglao (tech support lead at Mozilla Messaging) is going to talk to Kerz about the possibility of our using a license compatible with the license SuMoMo (The official knowledge base at support.mozillamessaging.com) uses. The issue came up when we planned some events where people on the tb-support-crew AT mozilla.org mailing list (mainly from the MozillaZine and Mozilla Messaging/GetSatisfaction communities) collaborate on writing KB articles. They are initially developed here and then ported to their site. That doesn't raise any legal issues if they are started from scratch. However, someday we may want to merge content from several articles (some of which are on their site) when creating a new article, and there is always the issue of not being able to use updates added to the SuMoMo version of the article on this sites version of the same article unless you start spending a lot of effort tracking and justifying stuff.
* I guess I'm new, I am "name already taken" from the forums, hello to everyone! --[[User:Lethargy|Lethargy]] 21:34, 10 May 2006 (UTC)


==Ownership and dispute resolution==
See the [http://kb.mozillazine.org/Knowledge_Base_changes/Archive#License_issues archive of license issues]. [[User:Tanstaafl|Tanstaafl]] 11:39, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
Prompted by the comments [http://forums.mozillazine.org/viewtopic.php?t=494282 in this forum thread], I believe we need to some sort of dispute resolution mechanism and general guidelines in the KB. Otherwise, disagreements can easily escalate into edit wars and contributors leaving. The obvious solution is to have the [http://kb.mozillazine.org/index.php?title=Special%3AListusers&group=sysop&username= Sysops] handle these things, but I don't know if there are enough active Sysops to present a decision ("The Sysops said so, so I'll do it" vs. "Np is crazy, screw him"). Thoughts?--[[User:Np|Np]] 21:43, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
:I also noticed that thread and it wasn't a nice read. I've been overrun a few times myself. Usually with an accompanying explanation though. Maybe you need more sysops then. If a policy is made, it should be promptly introduced to new editors to make sure they're aware of it. PS. I wish all KB editors should "watch" this page. Could it be automatically inserted into new editors watchlist? --[[User:FatJohn|FatJohn]] 01:28, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
::As of right now, the Sysops don't have the ability to change people's watchlists. Administrators might.--[[User:Np|Np]] 03:23, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
: First, what do you mean by "ownership"?  Should articles be "owned" by different editors or Sysops who have the final say on edits, for example, give Vectorspace  all the plugin articles, Tanstaafl all the Thunderbird articles and you and Unarmed take the preferences articles?  Or did I misunderstand? 
::No, what I mean is that someone or a group of people is "in charge" of the Knowledge Base, to create and modify policy and resolve disputes between members. There would not be anyone in charge of particular articles; members would be free to edit as they currently do (of course, with the exception of the dispute resolution process and any new policy created). --[[User:Np|Np]] 03:23, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
: Second, I think that the current system  of resolving editing disputes by posting to the article's Talk page should work in 99% or the cases.  Hopefully,  other editors would add to the discussion but if not, or if the issue still isn't resolved after a reasonable period, I suppose a [[Request for mediation]] page might work,  something similar to the [[Pages voted for deletion]] discussion?  Or, maybe one of the involved parties could  simply post a "Mediation request" here, on this page?  Once such a request is made,  further editing of the page by the disputing parties should cease until the editing conflict is resolved.  Such a mediation request could also be looked at as a request for "quality review" of the article, since after all, what we really want is for the article to be well written, understandable by the intended reader and technically accurate.  I mentioned in the forum thread that some sort of  "KB quality control" process is needed, besides just hoping that errors are caught and fixed as people review the recent changes or happen to read an article and spot a problem.  [[User:Alice Wyman|Alice Wyman]] 01:59, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
::Yes, the talk pages are usually sufficient in resolving disputes, though I suspect that many of disputes that arise are dropped by one of the parties to avoid the edit war. With a dispute resolution system, people wouldn't have to fear alienating users or entering an endless argument by asserting their views.
:::If you don't want people to risk alienating other editors then maybe a [[Request for quality review]] of the article (made by either one of the disputing parties OR by anyone else observing the conflict) would be the better route, but first a quality review process should be in place, hopefully similar to the review process taken before deleting an article, where everyone has the opportunity to contribute.  I guess what I'm trying to get at is that a mediated compromise  is preferable to an arbitrary Sysop decision (in the sense of [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mediation mediation] as opposed to [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arbitration arbitration]).  Of course it's easier for a Sysop to dictate what the resolution should be but I think that an open process where all editors are free to participate is better in the long term.  [[User:Alice Wyman|Alice Wyman]] 12:00, 7 December 2006 (UTC)


::The ability to change policy would help with quality control - we could dictate by policy in general terms what an article should or shouldn't be like.--[[User:Np|Np]] 03:23, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
==Using the new SeaMonkey category==
:::There are already general guidelines given in [[Rules#Editing_courtesy]] about documenting controversial changes (the linked [[Talk]] page even mentions using the Talk pages to suggest "Possible solutions to edit wars" in the "[[Talk#How_to_use_Talk |How to use Talk]]" section)  so maybe that's where dispute resolution should be mentioned, but nothing specifically about quality guidelines, I guess because it's a difficult subject. [[User:Alice Wyman|Alice Wyman]] 12:00, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
A new [[:Category:SeaMonkey]] was created awhile back, which went under my radar ;-).  I was thinking, why not use this new category to track SeaMonkey 2 articles for now?  I started a Discussion page here: [[:Category talk:SeaMonkey]] [[User:Alice Wyman|Alice]] 14:36, 9 February 2009 (UTC)


::We already have the ability to add a tag stating that the article doesn't meet wikipedia standards. The few times I've seen it used it didn't cause a dispute because it was pretty obvious that it deserved it. Perhaps the real issue is what types of disputes shouldn't be left to the talk pages. I remember the great difficulty several editors had dealing with one person who was basically kidnapping the anti-virus article to evangelize not using anti-virus software. That wasn't just two editors having a dispute, it was a case of whether one of the editors was acting inappropriately.  [[User:Tanstaafl|Tanstaafl]] 15:47, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
[http://kb.mozillazine.org/User:Skierpage Skierpage] is looking for advice on how to update old Mozilla Suite stuff for SeaMonkey, especially for Linux.  [[User:Tanstaafl|Tanstaafl]] 11:44, 19 November 2010 (UTC)


===Quality control and KB article feedback===
==Replacement of Profile Manager==
The [http://forums.mozillazine.org/viewtopic.php?t=494282 forum thread mentioned above] also included comments about quality control and feedback regarding user support documentation in general and in KB articles.  I suggested something here awhile back on a feedback process, when problems are found in KB articles (a "bad link" in the specific case I brought up) but got no response.  I ended up adding a section on [[MozillaZine_Knowledge_Base:About#Feedback |Feedback]] to the "About" article, but it brings up an important point.  Maybe the concept of "KB feedback"  should be expanded to include a process by which people on the forums (both helpers and people asking for help) who use  a KB article can have a way of giving some feedback on how the article did or didn't help solve a problem?  The process should not require the individual to set up a KB account just to post a comment on the article talk page, for obvious reasons.  One option is to post a comment to the forum, but maybe a link at the bottom of every KB article to a Feedback form is another possibility (I don't have the technical ability myself to come up with such a page but I'm sure others here do!).  Unfortunately, quality control and KB feedback is always going to result in potential alienation of editors if an error they've made is pointed out  or if their contributions are rewritten or removed from an article, but that's the price you pay for trying to improve the quality of articles.  [[User:Alice Wyman|Alice Wyman]] 12:00, 7 December 2006 (UTC)


:How is that better than using the associated discussion page? The discussion of the tradeoffs of alienating an editor seems to make the assumption there was only one editor for that article. Maybe I have too thin a skin, but if somebody writes an article and does most of the maintenance of it (i.e. they have an emotional investment) I'm concerned about their reaction if it gets publicly criticized and they think its due to changes made by somebody else. The collaborative style of a wiki is the not the type of collaboration most people are used to. I think there is a tradeoff in how much of a big deal you make of any feedback when you don't have many editors and the most common "feedback" nowadays is somebody trying to misuse the article to ask a question that should be asked in the forum. [[User:Tanstaafl|Tanstaafl]] 15:47, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
The profile manager is going to be eliminated after Firefox 4.0. [http://www.ghacks.net/2011/01/19/firefox-profile-manager-to-be-removed-soon/] [http://forums.mozillazine.org/viewtopic.php?f=38&t=2066609] Thunderbird will probably also do the same. [http://forums.mozillazine.org/viewtopic.php?f=29&t=2073455] The separate profile manager utility is not designed for end users, and its not clear yet whether it will even be bundled with the Mozilla application.
 
How do we want to handle documenting both? Its already very awkward documenting how to use the profile manager for multiple applications and multiple operating systems in one article. That is the reason why [[Moving_your_profile_folder_-_Thunderbird]] was created for example. Given the different release schedules for Firefox, SeaMonkey, and Thunderbird, and how some users keep using old major versions for a very long time we will probably have to deal with both for at least several years.
 
Do we want to adopt some naming convention in other articles to make it clear which one we're talking about or do we want to refer to both as the profile manager?
 
I realize this is early but I'd like to document how to use the replacement with Thunderbird (if only to get more people to try it and provide feedback to the author) and don't want to make that a isolated stand alone article. [[User:Tanstaafl|Tanstaafl]] 02:27, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
 
:I've already added this note to the top of the [[Profile Manager]] article:<br>
:{| {{prettytable}}
|-
|'''''Note:''' Mozilla is planning to remove the built-in Profile Manager  from future Mozilla applications (after Firefox 4.0) and a standalone "Profile Manager" application will be available. "Profile Manager 1.0 Beta 1" is described [http://jagriffin.wordpress.com/2011/01/11/profilemanager-1-0_beta1 here]. For more information, see [http://www.ghacks.net/2011/01/19/firefox-profile-manager-to-be-removed-soon/ this blog post] and [https://developer.mozilla.org/en/Profile_Manager this article at MDC]. [http://forums.mozillazine.org/viewtopic.php?p=10275581#p10275581] [https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=214675]  [https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=539524]''
|-
|}
:According to [https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=539524#c22 bug 539524 comment 22] the standalone PM application will probably not be bundled with future Firefox downloads when it is removed from Firefox and  will be a separate, optional download.   I thought that we might make a template similar to the above note and add it to the top of all articles about profiles.  When the built-in Profile Manager is actually removed (sometime after Firefox 4.0) we could add  something to the effect that the article or article section ''applies to Firefox 4.0 and below.'' We could then create a new "Profile Manager application" or "Profile Manager utility" article and link to it, just like we have  for the [[MozBackup]] standalone utility. [[User:Alice Wyman|Alice]] 14:10, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 14:10, 21 January 2011

This page has been created for several reasons.

  • It would be nice to have a place where new editors can introduce themselves and meet existing editors.
  • It would be good to allow new editors to safely propose content changes (minor or major) prior to implementing them.
  • It would be good to have a central location to discuss the style, content and organization of this Knowledge Base. (Some of the ideas in Talk:Knowledge Base can be migrated here, leaving that page solely for discussion of the front page article itself.
  • This page was an attempt to address incidents that have occurred on the KB where some groups of editors have been unaware of major changes being made by other groups of editors.

This page is the primary place to announce new suggestions. Whenever possible, issues should be discussed in a more appropriate place, such as the discussion page of the article or category that the suggestion affects. Once suggestions are resolved, they are moved to Knowledge Base changes/Archive.

You can request somebody create an article at Requested articles .

Copyright/License problems

I suggest we think about adding a short "Copyright/License problems" section in Rules_and_guidelines that sets peoples expectations on what they can legitimately copy/modify. I'm splitting this out as a separate topic from "Using external sources and references in KB articles". Please discuss this at Talk:Rules_and_guidelines . Tanstaafl 08:32, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Roland Tanglao (tech support lead at Mozilla Messaging) is going to talk to Kerz about the possibility of our using a license compatible with the license SuMoMo (The official knowledge base at support.mozillamessaging.com) uses. The issue came up when we planned some events where people on the tb-support-crew AT mozilla.org mailing list (mainly from the MozillaZine and Mozilla Messaging/GetSatisfaction communities) collaborate on writing KB articles. They are initially developed here and then ported to their site. That doesn't raise any legal issues if they are started from scratch. However, someday we may want to merge content from several articles (some of which are on their site) when creating a new article, and there is always the issue of not being able to use updates added to the SuMoMo version of the article on this sites version of the same article unless you start spending a lot of effort tracking and justifying stuff.

See the archive of license issues. Tanstaafl 11:39, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Using the new SeaMonkey category

A new Category:SeaMonkey was created awhile back, which went under my radar ;-). I was thinking, why not use this new category to track SeaMonkey 2 articles for now? I started a Discussion page here: Category talk:SeaMonkey Alice 14:36, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Skierpage is looking for advice on how to update old Mozilla Suite stuff for SeaMonkey, especially for Linux. Tanstaafl 11:44, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Replacement of Profile Manager

The profile manager is going to be eliminated after Firefox 4.0. [1] [2] Thunderbird will probably also do the same. [3] The separate profile manager utility is not designed for end users, and its not clear yet whether it will even be bundled with the Mozilla application.

How do we want to handle documenting both? Its already very awkward documenting how to use the profile manager for multiple applications and multiple operating systems in one article. That is the reason why Moving_your_profile_folder_-_Thunderbird was created for example. Given the different release schedules for Firefox, SeaMonkey, and Thunderbird, and how some users keep using old major versions for a very long time we will probably have to deal with both for at least several years.

Do we want to adopt some naming convention in other articles to make it clear which one we're talking about or do we want to refer to both as the profile manager?

I realize this is early but I'd like to document how to use the replacement with Thunderbird (if only to get more people to try it and provide feedback to the author) and don't want to make that a isolated stand alone article. Tanstaafl 02:27, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

I've already added this note to the top of the Profile Manager article:
Note: Mozilla is planning to remove the built-in Profile Manager from future Mozilla applications (after Firefox 4.0) and a standalone "Profile Manager" application will be available. "Profile Manager 1.0 Beta 1" is described here. For more information, see this blog post and this article at MDC. [4] [5] [6]
According to bug 539524 comment 22 the standalone PM application will probably not be bundled with future Firefox downloads when it is removed from Firefox and will be a separate, optional download. I thought that we might make a template similar to the above note and add it to the top of all articles about profiles. When the built-in Profile Manager is actually removed (sometime after Firefox 4.0) we could add something to the effect that the article or article section applies to Firefox 4.0 and below. We could then create a new "Profile Manager application" or "Profile Manager utility" article and link to it, just like we have for the MozBackup standalone utility. Alice 14:10, 21 January 2011 (UTC)