Re: External links @ the wiki, aka pagechange wars

On May 24, 2007, at 08:50, Colm MacCarthaigh wrote:

> On Thu, May 24, 2007 at 08:05:30AM -0400, Joshua Slive
wrote:
>> External links are encouraged where they add
substantial value, but
>> you may not link to your own pages or otherwise
seek private benefits
>> from external links.
>
> I like the elegance of this rule, because if it's your
page and you
> words, well you can just add the content to the wiki
anyway. But at  
> the
> same time it may invite even more awkward and
inappropriate behaviour,
> e.g. paying someone else to add the links on your
behalf.
>
> I think this problem is always going to fall into the
"We know abuse
> when we see it" category, it requires a vague kind
of rule-making  
> which
> only humans can apply.
>
> I'm in favour of banning these links in this instance,
though not all
> external links.

The trouble in this particular case is that the contributor
in  
question writes articles that are misleading or completely
wrong, and  
appears to be unaware of the fact that he is being
misleading and  
wrong. I'm not sure if he's genuinely trying to be helpful,
or merely  
trying to inflate his google ranking by creating pages that
link back  
to his site. Either way, the content that he produces does
not add  
substantial value, nor do the pages to which he links, and
often his  
content actively promotes practices that are discouraged as
being  
less-than-best-practice.

Added to this is his refusal to accept correction, so that
when his  
articles are modified to reflect best practice and reality,
he gets  
offended and changes it back.

Behind the scenes there are angry and insulting email
messages being  
exchanged, which I'm occasionally copied on, in which he
defends his  
articles as being the best things ever written, and accusing
us of  
singling him out for abuse. It's all very juvenile and time
consuming.

However, one of the side effects of having this kind of
public Wiki  
is that we have to do this kind of policing and maintenance,
and some  
people are going to feel singled out.

--
If you miss this moment
You miss your life




------------------------------------------------------------
---------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: docs-unsubscribehttpd.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: docs-helphttpd.apache.org

On 5/24/07, Rich Bowen <rbowenrcbowen.com> wrote:
>
> On May 24, 2007, at 08:50, Colm MacCarthaigh wrote:
>
> > On Thu, May 24, 2007 at 08:05:30AM -0400, Joshua
Slive wrote:
> >> External links are encouraged where they add
substantial value, but
> >> you may not link to your own pages or
otherwise seek private benefits
> >> from external links.
> >
> > I like the elegance of this rule, because if it's
your page and you
> > words, well you can just add the content to the
wiki anyway. But at
> > the
> > same time it may invite even more awkward and
inappropriate behaviour,
> > e.g. paying someone else to add the links on your
behalf.
> >
> > I think this problem is always going to fall into
the "We know abuse
> > when we see it" category, it requires a vague
kind of rule-making
> > which
> > only humans can apply.
> >
> > I'm in favour of banning these links in this
instance, though not all
> > external links.
>
> The trouble in this particular case is that the
contributor in
> question writes articles that are misleading or
completely wrong, and
> appears to be unaware of the fact that he is being
misleading and
> wrong. I'm not sure if he's genuinely trying to be
helpful, or merely
> trying to inflate his google ranking by creating pages
that link back
> to his site. Either way, the content that he produces
does not add
> substantial value, nor do the pages to which he links,
and often his
> content actively promotes practices that are
discouraged as being
> less-than-best-practice.
>
> Added to this is his refusal to accept correction, so
that when his
> articles are modified to reflect best practice and
reality, he gets
> offended and changes it back.
>
> Behind the scenes there are angry and insulting email
messages being
> exchanged, which I'm occasionally copied on, in which
he defends his
> articles as being the best things ever written, and
accusing us of
> singling him out for abuse. It's all very juvenile and
time consuming.
>
> However, one of the side effects of having this kind of
public Wiki
> is that we have to do this kind of policing and
maintenance, and some
> people are going to feel singled out.
>
> --
> If you miss this moment
> You miss your life
>
>
>
>
>
------------------------------------------------------------
---------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: docs-unsubscribehttpd.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: docs-helphttpd.apache.org
>
>

+1
-- 
~Jorge

------------------------------------------------------------
---------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: docs-unsubscribehttpd.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: docs-helphttpd.apache.org

Rich Bowen wrote:

> The trouble in this particular case is that the
contributor in
> question writes articles that are misleading or
completely wrong, and
> appears to be unaware of the fact that he is being
misleading and
> wrong.

Then if AskApache will not correct the error of its ways, I
suggest that you
link to its pages -- with documentation correcting all of
its false
statements, as a warning to anyone who should fall upon them
by accident.

After all, I might accidentally come across them by a Google
search, and you
owe it to your users to ensure that such well-known
falsehoods are corrected
so that we do not follow them.  That may not be a notoriety
that it wants,
but too bad.

> when his articles are modified to reflect best practice
and reality,
> he gets offended and changes it back.

Too bad.  If it tries that on the Wiki, ban it.

	--- Noel



------------------------------------------------------------
---------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: docs-unsubscribehttpd.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: docs-helphttpd.apache.org

On Thu, May 24, 2007 at 03:15:56PM -0500, Webmaster wrote:
> Hello,  
> 
> After you read the article, how could you possibly say
that it is spam?

I don't think it's spam - I think linking to it from the
wiki is not
helpful.

Firstly, I don't think it's well written. I know that many
brilliant
technical people aren't great writers, and that's fine - I'm
not an ace
coder. But at Apache, we work together. And that means
allowing other
people to change your work.

> That is perhaps the most relevant article I've ever
seen about Apache
> ErrorDocuments and more specifically, HTTP Status
Codes.  Its the single,
> only place on the entire Internet where each of
Apache's 57 Status Codes are
> listed.  Its the only place on the Net where you can
find the headers of
> each Apache ErrorDocument.  Its the only article
anywhere to have every
> single returned errordocument.  I know because I did
the work, I filled in
> the blanks on the Common_HTTPStatusCodes, I wrote it,
and I published my
> findings to support open-source and Apache, and for the
benefit of the
> entire net community.

I have to disagree with you here. It's not the only place to
have the
HTTP status codes - and if what we want is those, I think
w3c is a much
better reference. AskApache may be well researched, stable,
anything you
like, but w3c actually define the standards (roughly). Also,
it doesn't
have every single returned ErrorDocument. I know, because I
translated
all of them into Irish, and the Irish translations aren't
there =) The
headers will be different depending on exactly what
ErrorDocument is
returned - language negotiation, or custom ErrorDocuments
will change
these things. Not by much, but it's still a change. You also
don't
mention - again, just for example - that there are no
required header
codes for 1xx status codes.

If you truly want to support Apache, put this information
under an
Apache license, put it straight on to the wiki (not a link,
because I
can't edit the content on your pages, for example), and
we'll work
together.

> I actually did research on the external linking of
sources or references on
> the Apache wiki, asf, many other apache wikis, and the
link to my article is
> 100% compliant with the policies, but besides that it
is a really fantastic
> article with 100% relevancy. 

The httpd project isn't Derby, or Jakarta, or the ASF. It's
the httpd
project, and while it's part of the ASF, it's also different
to other
parts. The ASF works as a meritocracy. When you prove that
you're a good
contributor, AND that you play well with others (even if you
think
they're not playing well with you), you earn respect and a
certain right
to be heard.

> 1. There is no copyright issue.

Great! Then put this content on the wiki, and let us tweak
it. Not a
link, to somewhere we don't have edit access. The content,
as it is.

> 2. Its 100% relevant to the wiki article.

Again, the content please.

> 3. Its the ONLY place on the NET with that information.
It is the
> authoritative link because its the original source.

w3c is the authoritative source for information about HTTP
status codes,
the Apache source code is the authoritative source for
information about
ErrorDocuments that ship with Apache, a user's hard drive is
the
authoritative source for the ErrorDocuments their version of
Apache is
actually sending.

> 4. Its a not-for-profit site.

I don't really care. It's a not-for-sharing,
not-community-editable
site.

> 5. The source that I used to fill in the many blanks on
the Status Code
> table was my article, and since the article is
incredibly lengthy a link to
> the original source is 100% warranted.  

Bzzt, no. Firstly, the *original* source is the Apache httpd
- that's
what served your requests, after all. More importantly, if I
write up
stuff about mod_memcache - again, just for example, because
this really
happened - for a paper that's to be presented, and then
later, that same
stuff gets added to the actual Apache httpd docs, there
isn't a link
anywhere to the original paper! And it's not warranted.
Finally, the
wiki article looks good just as it is - thank you for the
work you've
put in; but I really don't think a link will improve it. All
that's
needed is already there.

> 6. AskApache.com is registered for another 7 years, so
these links are
> stable.

I really don't care much about 'stable' - httpd 1.3 docs are
'stable',
it's not changing much these days. That doesn't mean they're
always
right, or useful, or not in need of communal oversight and
editing.

> 7. Have you even read the article?

Yes. Repeatedly. I found the English passable at best, and
I'm a
linguistics student. I'm happy to work *with* you - but as
long as this
stuff is outside the editorial purview of the ASF or the
httpd project,
I can't do that. And even if you were to give me personally
access,
there's still Rich, and Kess, and Bill, and Nick, and Paul,
and all the
other people who work on our docs, as a team.

> I once again find myself in a wiki battle of reverts,
but I just don't have
> the patience or the time to be harassed every time I
contribute to the wiki.
> Its supposed to be a place where new ideas and drafts
can flourish, shutting
> people down who want to contribute is not cool. 
Calling me a spammer and
> calling my policy-compliant link "spam" is
disingenuous and that rudeness
> and immaturity is NOT following the guidelines and
policies of apache and
> asf.  

Drafts, great. Ideas, great. Links, not so useful. CONTENT,
please.

> I have probably spent over 30 hours trying to
contribute to the wiki, which
> I understood to be the trial area for working out new
documentation.  A
> "work-in-progress" where the point was shared
collaboration.  Unfortunately
> pctony and megaspaz have refused to let me post
anything on the wiki.. It
> seems that every tip and suggestion I contribute
immediately gets shot down
> as either being plagiarised, misleading and incorrect,
or they just don't
> give me an excuse.  I have literally spent hours
writing a new wiki article
> in the ScratchPad area, and a few minutes after I
posted it was immediately
> deleted. 

I haven't followed most of your stuff, and I don't think
your
ErrorDocuments page is awfully misleading. I think it's
slightly
misleading, but adding a link to it rather than just the
content smells
a lot of self-promotion and unwillingness to play nice with
others. That
said, Rich has - very literally - written the book(s) on
Apache, and if
he says the stuff you're suggesting is
less-than-best-practise, you'd do
well to listen to him, and revise YOUR site - not get into
an edit war
on the wiki.

> My stuff isn't discussed or improved upon or checked
out, its just
> completely deleted.  My email address is on my username
page on the wiki,
> and I have emailed both pctony and megaspaz several
times to try and get
> them to understand we are on the same team and the wiki
isn't their personal
> feifdom.  Look at my site, askapache.com.  Its almost
entirely dedicated to
> Apache httpd tips, tricks, etc..  I challenge pctony
and megaspaz to stop
> deleting all my posts and instead show me how its
wrong.  Anyone who knows
> anything about Apache will immediately recognize my
posts for being
> original, creative, and incredible resources for the
whole web to enjoy for
> free.  My billing is currently $125/hr, I am NOT trying
to make any kind of
> profit from askapache.com, and to suggest my articles
are spam is complete
> ludicrous.  Anyone can shout slogans,  I put the code
up on the NET for
> everyone to discuss and improve.   

This project is a meritocracy. We listen to and respect
people who've
proven themselves, by consistent effort, AND by willingness
to play
nice with others. If you want to play with us, throw your
ball into the
ring, and we'll play. Don't stand at the side, waving your
ball, and
yelling "Nyah-nyah! You can look, but you can't touch!
My ball!"

"Show me what I'm doing wrong" also doesn't fly
here, unless you're
terribly polite about it. One of my very first commits was
reverted
because I made a small boo-boo, and rather than whining
about it, I
looked at their change, went over what I had done again,
figured out
where I'd gone wrong, and sent a mail to say "Doh!
Sorry, my bad."
Things like that earn you respect - and the next time I
fluffed up, I
got an email saying "Did you mean to do that?",
and got to fix my own
mistakes.

I don't disagree that some of your tips and tricks work; but
the guys
here are as smart as they come, when it comes to Apache. And
if they say
"that's really not best practise", you should
learn from them. Hang out
on #apache, see how we work, what's regarded as cheap and
hackish, and
what the latest-greatest ways of doing things are. There
have been a lot
of changes over the lifetime of the Apache httpd server, and
(almost!)
all of them have been for good reasons. Learn what's changed
and why,
and you'll benefit your users and ours.

> We are all like-minded here when it comes to Apache, so
I hope we can rise
> above the emotional aspects of this issue and instead
focus on making the
> wiki a more productive and friendly place for everyone
who has ideas and is
> willing to donate their time and effort.

I do hope you'll rise above the emotions too, and look
forward to
playing ball with you in the future!

Noirin

> 

------------------------------------------------------------
---------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: docs-unsubscribehttpd.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: docs-helphttpd.apache.org

On Thu, May 24, 2007 at 09:04:43PM +0100, Noirin Plunkett
wrote:
> > 4. Its a not-for-profit site.
> 
> I don't really care. It's a not-for-sharing,
not-community-editable
> site.

And to further illustratre that we really *don't* care; you
can actually
take the entire official Apache httpd documentation tree,
and publish a
copy on your site.  You can surround it with as many ads as
you like and
you can make as much money as you can, and it's all
permitted by the
license.

Any use you can make of the content in the wiki is less
clear, but the
ethos of the ASF is as above, and with some small effort (if
neccessary)
I certainly believe the same could be made the case for it.


It is also not as if by contributing content to the wiki,
the content
on your site would cease to exist 

-- 
Colm MacCárthaigh                        Public Key:
colm+pgpstdlib.net

------------------------------------------------------------
---------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: docs-unsubscribehttpd.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: docs-helphttpd.apache.org

On 5/24/07, Webmaster <webmasteraskapache.com> wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I've never used this list so bear with me,

The main point here is that you need to be ready to accept
and act on
feedback from more-experienced contributors. If you aren't,
then you
aren't welcome as a contributor.

Perhaps part of the problem is that the feedback channel in
the wiki
is not wide enough. One line commit messages don't give much
room for
conversation. When I get a chance, I'll expand the
information in the
wiki on how to contribute, and specifically suggest coming
to this
list to discuss any conflict.

Beyond that, links to your own site are not welcome on the
wiki. On
the modern internet, where links are like currency, there is
too much
room for conflicts of interest. If you agree to abide by our
rules,
you are welcome to contribute. But links to your site are
not welcome,
no matter how relevant. You are, of course, welcome and
encouraged to
maintain your site to benefit apache users. (Although your
site name
is misleading and possibly a trademark violation; haven't
you been
contacted by a member of our Public Relations Committee
about that?)

On the specific case at hand, I have one major thing to
contribute:
The whole Common_HTTPStatusCodes page is redundant in my
opinion. It
duplicates (with a lot less information) the content of the
HTTP spec.
In fact, I plan to delete this page unless I hear objections
on this
list.

Joshua.

------------------------------------------------------------
---------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: docs-unsubscribehttpd.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: docs-helphttpd.apache.org

On 05/25/2007 12:16 AM, Joshua Slive wrote:

> On the specific case at hand, I have one major thing to
contribute:
> The whole Common_HTTPStatusCodes page is redundant in
my opinion. It
> duplicates (with a lot less information) the content of
the HTTP spec.
> In fact, I plan to delete this page unless I hear
objections on this

+1 to this. Though it might make sense to leave the link at
the top of
the page. Although there are many locations to find RFC2616
on the
net it is convenient for the interested and not frequent RFC
reader
to have a direct link on chapter 10 of RFC2616.

Regards

Rüdiger


------------------------------------------------------------
---------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: docs-unsubscribehttpd.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: docs-helphttpd.apache.org

> The trouble in this particular case is that the
contributor 
> in question writes articles that are misleading or
completely 
> wrong, and appears to be unaware of the fact that he is
being 
> misleading and wrong. I'm not sure if he's genuinely
trying 
> to be helpful, or merely trying to inflate his google
ranking 
> by creating pages that link back to his site. 

If I am misleading or wrong in any way shape or form than it
is absolutely
accidental.   Instead of repeatedly telling me how bad my
contributions are,
and deleting anything I try to contribute, why not just
point out WHERE I am
wrong, WHERE I am misleading, that way we can work together
and add valuable
content to the wiki.  Not to mention I can revise the
articles on my blog,
which means your feedback will be helping thousands of
newbie Apache users.



> Either way, the 
> content that he produces does not add substantial
value, nor 
> do the pages to which he links, and often his content 
> actively promotes practices that are discouraged as
being 
> less-than-best-practice.

I don't care if you are the top Apache Guru on the planet,
the fact is that
thousands of people DO think that my articles add
substantial value, and if
you really feel my stuff is that bad its your problem, not
the content.
Otherwise I would encourage you to make suggestions, point
out errors,
highlight alternatives, illustrate best-practices, instead
of just talking
about how bad my contributions are.


> Added to this is his refusal to accept correction, so
that 
> when his articles are modified to reflect best practice
and 
> reality, he gets offended and changes it back.

Say whatever you want, I'm not going to argue when the
evidence is online
for everyone to examine.  Go look at the wiki at my posting
history, you
will see how unfairly I have been treated. 

> Behind the scenes there are angry and insulting email 
> messages being exchanged, which I'm occasionally copied
on, 
> in which he defends his articles as being the best
things 
> ever written, and accusing us of singling him out for
abuse. 
> It's all very juvenile and time consuming.

I believe I've written 3 people a total of 5 emails in the
past 4 months.  I
saved everything so I don't have to argue or use sweeping
generalizations,
facts speak for themselves.   I just don't understand all
the unfriendliness
and pettiness from 2 individuals since day 1 (look at my
wiki history).  In
fact, one of the people actually went to my blog and left
this kindhearted
public comment.  "This is the most idiotic ‘tip’ I’ve
ever read on the web
since 1990....  I am curious as to how you manage to
generate technological
content, you must be copying and pasting from different
sources." Pleasant
no?

I feel like just because I posted some radical, new, and
alternative ideas
and solutions that might not have been discussed elsewhere
before, people
get a little competitive and want me to fall in line or
something.  I can
already here the response: "your stuff wasn't new or
radical, it didn't
solve anything, it was wrong, poorly written, and definately
misleading."
Why not respond like you are supposed to and actually SHOW
me what is wrong,
misleading, or poorly written?  Isn't that what the wiki is
for?  How can we
improve content when it just gets deleted right away?  I
don't have time to
try to make a couple people like me.. thats silly, I go to
the wiki to
contribute, share ideas, and learn about my favorite
software.

I am only interested in being able to help and contribute to
the wiki
without immediately being deleted, reverted, and publically
dissed both
personally and academically.  I understand how it could have
gotten to this
point, drama is always exciting, but the past is the past
and I am just
wanting to contribute.  I've been trying for several months
now, with month
long breaks in-between, but I feel like if the people with
grudges can't let
it go, then I will never be able to contribute.  Isn't there
a policy or a
guideline or someone with rank that can point the way to put
this behind us?

"Teamwork makes the Dream Work"

No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition. 
Version: 7.5.467 / Virus Database: 269.7.7/816 - Release
Date: 5/23/2007
3:59 PM
 


------------------------------------------------------------
---------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: docs-unsubscribehttpd.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: docs-helphttpd.apache.org

> The whole Common_HTTPStatusCodes page is redundant in
my 
> opinion. It duplicates (with a lot less information)
the 
> content of the HTTP spec.
> In fact, I plan to delete this page unless I hear
objections 
> on this list.
> 
> Joshua.


Actually if you compare the RFC spec to the list on the
wiki, you will
notice the wiki contains a lot more Status Codes than the
spec.  I admit
that this information may be totally boring and pointless
for 99.999% of
people, but this is fascinating to me and I think it would
be a shame to
delete the most complete list of HTTP Status Codes anywhere
on the net.  The
link is to the RFC because if someone wants to learn more
information they
can go there.  The RFC is too long for the wiki and THAT
would be redundant.
Likewise the article I linked to
http://www.askapache.com/htaccess/ap
ache-status-code-headers-errordocument.h
tml and the other article I linked to
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_HTTP_status_codes
also contain
additional information.  Especially my article, which is the
only published
reference of the actual headers and data sent by apache for
all 57 HTTP
Status Codes.  How many does the RFC talk about? 40?  So I
guess I am
objecting, and I hope someone understands why.  Or am I just
missing
something?

AskApache

No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition. 
Version: 7.5.467 / Virus Database: 269.7.7/816 - Release
Date: 5/23/2007
3:59 PM
 


------------------------------------------------------------
---------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: docs-unsubscribehttpd.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: docs-helphttpd.apache.org

On Thu, May 24, 2007 at 06:55:07PM -0500, Webmaster wrote:
> Actually if you compare the RFC spec to the list on the
wiki, you will
> notice the wiki contains a lot more Status Codes than
the spec.  I admit
> that this information may be totally boring and
pointless for 99.999% of
> people, but this is fascinating to me and I think it
would be a shame to
> delete the most complete list of HTTP Status Codes
anywhere on the net.  

It is not within our power to delete it, nor are we. At
question is 
its value in link-form on our wiki.

-- 
Colm MacCárthaigh                        Public Key:
colm+pgpstdlib.net

------------------------------------------------------------
---------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: docs-unsubscribehttpd.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: docs-helphttpd.apache.org