[R] Wikibooks

[hadley wickham]

> >
> > I once tried:
> >
> > http://wiki.r-project.org/rwiki/doku.php?id=guides:lmer-tests
> >
> > but I don't think I will do this again on the existing Wiki. I am a frequent
> > Wikipedia-Writer, so I know how it works, but this was discouraging.
> >
> > 1) The structure of the Wiki was and is still incomprehensibly to me. I needed
> > too much time to find out how to put the stuff into it.
>
> Really bad. This was the best design we obtained after a hard work of
> several tens of people. Sorry for you. By the way, did you ever noticed
> that Wikipedia basically has NO structure? It is intended to be mostly
> accessed by KEYWORDS. On the main page, you have: "main" (that page),
> then "content" (explanation and general links to the whole content),
> plus a couple of selected content links (featured, recent, random).

Why is how wikipedia structured relevant?  The R wiki is not an
encyclopedia, it has a quite different purpose which would be
facilitiated by better structure.  Obviously at some point the
decision was made to structure the site by type of document (large
guide, short tips, package information etc), but why?  Wouldn't it be
more appropriate to organise it around subjects?  (Of course coming up
with a good subject classification is fiendishly difficult, but
perhaps the R keywords hierarchy would have been a good start).

> So, if you like this structure, that is, basically, no structure and
> access through keywords... why not to do the same with the R Wiki? Just
> type your keyword in the top-right text entry and click "search". Then,
> you don't need to care about that "structure that is still
> incomprehensible to you".

If search is the most important navigational element why is it not
more obvious?  Additionally the recent changes button right next to
the search box makes it harder to distinguish whether the text field
is related to search or recent changes.

> > 2) I decided to use the "large guides" section, because I wanted the thread
> > transcript to be one one page. If you check the revision history, you will find
> > that I needed more than three hours to get it working. The main reason is the
> > sluggish response, and the incomprehensible error messages or the lack of it
> > when some " was not matched or whatever (Thanks, Ben, for correcting the
> > remaining errors). This is a problem of the Wiki software used, other Wikis such
> > as Media(pedia) are much more tolerant or informant.
>
> As I said, sluggish response is probably due to a combination of a slow
> Internet communication from your computer to the server at the time you
> edited your page, the edition of a too large page, and lack of edition
> section per section (you can edit each paragraph separately). I already
> made some corrections on the Wiki when I was in USA (the server is in
> Belgium, Europe), and it was not sluggish at all... On other
> circumstances, I noted a much slower reaction, too. That's Internet!

Regardless of the reasons, the fact remains that at least one person
has found it difficult and slow.  Whenever one person complains you
can be sure that 10 other people have tried and given up without
complaining.

Wiki syntax is difficult and the page explaining it is poorly structured.

> DokuWiki is NOT slower than Mediawiki, especially with an underused Wiki
> site as R wiki is currently.
>
> > Then, Philippe Grosjean informed me: "Your page is way too long and is a rather
> > crude copy and paste from the long thread in the mailing list."
>
> Yes, I still believe so. Wiki pages are more effective when they are
> kept short.

This is not a good way to build up a community around a wiki.  The
evidence regarding whether many small interlinked pages is more
preferrered or more effective than one large page is scanty, and often
it comes down to personal preference.

Hadley