Forum Spam/Filtering Redesign; 300+ Linux News/Articles/Reviews For November

[bug77]

Michael, perhaps you should try creating a "Phoronix Wiki", where you (or other forum members) can create/edit articles based on terminology that is frequently used. So for example when you have some benchmarks about a Mesa update, you could have wiki pages for Mesa and gallium3D explaining to newbies what those are. You can link to these pages during your main articles. As I'm sure you're well aware, many users complain about phrasing and certain details, so by allowing [premium] members to modify the articles, you can take a lot of the load off your hands. Since this would be part of Phoronix, you'd still get ad revenue.

IMO, everybody wins by doing this - you get ad money, people get the information they want without having to ask for it, you don't have to put in that much work yourself, and everything is phrased the way the userbase deems agreeable.

Get real. When people are too lazy to select->right click->search google, a wiki is a waste of time.

[schmidtbag]

Get real. When people are too lazy to select->right click->search google, a wiki is a waste of time.

Unless you provide a source proving your point, what you're stating is a personal anecdote, which doesn't mean much. Besides if what you said was true, mind explaining how wikipedia managed to be so successful?

For someone like me, sometimes I search google, sometimes I ask questions here. When I don't use google, it's because I know there won't be a way to get a clean or quick answer. Sometimes I just want a simple overview telling me what something is so I can keep reading the article; I don't want to have to spend 5+ minutes going out of my way to research something I don't know much about when I don't care enough to learn everything - that's annoying. I'm thinking this wiki acts more like a detailed dictionary rather than a full-blown reference; that's what Wikipedia is for.

Case in point, try looking up a brief helpful description of what Mesa is, how it works, how it relates to other software, how it compares to other Linux GPU drivers, and maybe some pros and cons with using it. These are things people would be asking about when they encounter something they don't know. It involves some digging. The Wikipedia pages can be large and have a lot of clutter that the average Linux newbie doesn't care about. It's great if you want a lot of technical and historical background, but it can be a bit overkill when you just want to quickly know what something is.

[tomtomme]

Unless you provide a source proving your point, what you're stating is a personal anecdote, which doesn't mean much. Besides if what you said was true, mind explaining how wikipedia managed to be so successful?

For someone like me, sometimes I search google, sometimes I ask questions here. When I don't use google, it's because I know there won't be a way to get a clean or quick answer. Sometimes I just want a simple overview telling me what something is so I can keep reading the article; I don't want to have to spend 5+ minutes going out of my way to research something I don't know much about when I don't care enough to learn everything - that's annoying. I'm thinking this wiki acts more like a detailed dictionary rather than a full-blown reference; that's what Wikipedia is for.

Case in point, try looking up a brief helpful description of what Mesa is, how it works, how it relates to other software, how it compares to other Linux GPU drivers, and maybe some pros and cons with using it. These are things people would be asking about when they encounter something they don't know. It involves some digging. The Wikipedia pages can be large and have a lot of clutter that the average Linux newbie doesn't care about. It's great if you want a lot of technical and historical background, but it can be a bit overkill when you just want to quickly know what something is.

interesting idea. but what could we explain in a wiki, that is not already explained at wikipedia?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mesa_(computer_graphics)

I think links to wikipedia would be sufficient. But then again - in former times there were so many links within an article, that the users here complained about that. Because the article would be harder to read with all those underlined words in different color.

[schmidtbag]

interesting idea. but what could we explain in a wiki, that is not already explained at wikipedia?

I think links to wikipedia would be sufficient. But then again - in former times there were so many links within an article, that the users here complained about that. Because the article would be harder to read with all those underlined words in different color.

As stated before, it acts more as a quick detailed dictionary that gives readers a general idea of what something is without having to look it up. Not everything discussed on Phoronix has Wikipedia articles. Many times when there is one, it may not have enough information, or, there is sometimes too much information to sift through. So, the average article would likely be 3 paragraphs or less, and then on the side would link users to anything directly related.

EDIT:
Look at something like a GPU review on a website like guru3d.com. There are a handful pages of every GPU review that are almost exact copies of other articles. These pages act as a quick overview explaining to the readers what/how things were done and maybe some generic details provided AMD or Nvidia that applies to the entire series. Sometimes it can be a bit tedious skimming through them when you already know what they say, but they are definitely useful (especially to newcomers). So, by doing something like a wiki and linking to this kind of documentation, readers can quickly understand what they need to without well-informed readers having to be annoyed with sifting through stuff they already know.

[tomtomme]

As stated before, it acts more as a quick detailed dictionary that gives readers a general idea of what something is without having to look it up. Not everything discussed on Phoronix has Wikipedia articles.

I still don´t know what you could mean here. Some examples are welcome.

Many times when there is one, it may not have enough information, or, there is sometimes too much information to sift through. So, the average article would likely be 3 paragraphs or less, and then on the side would link users to anything directly related.

The first paragraph of every wikipedia article has a definition of 1 to 3 sentences. Thats short enough I guess. If you want to know more you read beyound the first paragraph.
My point is: We would re-invent the wheel.
And if there is an wikipedia article that has to few information - then we could edit it. Or even create a new one within wikipedia.
I do not know what value another wiki would get us - besides much work.

[schmidtbag]

I still don´t know what you could mean here. Some examples are welcome.

I'll give 3 examples:
1. Let's say somebody encounters an article based on more OpenGL specs being supported in Mesa, but doesn't know what Mesa is. The reader just wants a short synopsis of what mesa is and how it relates to the article. If you look at the Wikipedia page, the first section gives you a general idea of what it is but it lacks info that Phoronix readers may question, such as who is developing what, what Mesa does and doesn't include, what the alternatives are, why do some drivers use different compilers, and so on. Basically information that may regularly get asked or is misconceived but isn't easily/quickly found in a single Wikipedia article.
2. Let's look at an article posted today:
http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?pag...oogle-OSS-Fuzz
As of writing, if you wanted more info on this you could search for "OSS-Fuzz", but there is no Wikipedia article.
3. Here's another article posted today:
http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?pag...-November-2016
If someone wanted to know more about Haiku OS, the Wikipedia article mostly just talks about it's history and a lot of things nobody really cares about. It does eventually get into details people here may care about, but for those with a short attention span and just want a quick idea of what it is or what it's like, that article doesn't do a good job. Or, maybe people might want to know more about "BUrl", which is obscure enough that you'd have to put in some effort to find some reasonable information about it.

Remember, the point of this is to quickly get information, where people just want to get a general understanding so they can keep reading the article. It's for those who are interested enough to keep reading but not interested enough to research it.

Something I see very frequently on Phoronix involves people asking what something is, why something is the way it is, how something works, or making a very misinformed statement.

[cen1]

I am glad my suggestion to combat the spam was implemented. Hopefully this change works out well and your mod queue doesn't get filled with too much crap.

[tomtomme]

I'll give 3 examples:
1. Let's say somebody encounters an article based on more OpenGL specs being supported in Mesa, but doesn't know what Mesa is. The reader just wants a short synopsis of what mesa is and how it relates to the article. If you look at the Wikipedia page, the first section gives you a general idea of what it is but it lacks info that Phoronix readers may question, such as who is developing what, what Mesa does and doesn't include, what the alternatives are, why do some drivers use different compilers, and so on. Basically information that may regularly get asked or is misconceived but isn't easily/quickly found in a single Wikipedia article.
2. Let's look at an article posted today:
http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?pag...oogle-OSS-Fuzz
As of writing, if you wanted more info on this you could search for "OSS-Fuzz", but there is no Wikipedia article.
3. Here's another article posted today:
http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?pag...-November-2016
If someone wanted to know more about Haiku OS, the Wikipedia article mostly just talks about it's history and a lot of things nobody really cares about. It does eventually get into details people here may care about, but for those with a short attention span and just want a quick idea of what it is or what it's like, that article doesn't do a good job. Or, maybe people might want to know more about "BUrl", which is obscure enough that you'd have to put in some effort to find some reasonable information about it.

Remember, the point of this is to quickly get information, where people just want to get a general understanding so they can keep reading the article. It's for those who are interested enough to keep reading but not interested enough to research it.

Something I see very frequently on Phoronix involves people asking what something is, why something is the way it is, how something works, or making a very misinformed statement.

yeah all very well. but you still did not answer why we should not improve wikipedia? why create an own wiki if we could just add all the info in wikipedia?

[schmidtbag]

yeah all very well. but you still did not answer why we should not improve wikipedia? why create an own wiki if we could just add all the info in wikipedia?

There's nothing wrong with wikipedia, but as stated before, sometimes there's just too much info to sift through. Wikipedia is good for researching, not a quick to-the-point answer.

[tomtomme]

There's nothing wrong with wikipedia, but as stated before, sometimes there's just too much info to sift through. Wikipedia is good for researching, not a quick to-the-point answer.

the quick to the point answer should be in the first paragraph of wikipedia. If it is not there, we should improve it. I will start with the mesa article and the points you mentioned that are missing in the first paragraph as I have much freetime today (and a cold, so the couch it is). Let us see if it comes through the review and then we could poke michael to put the links. Or even better - let us the community do this work. Maybe the registered ones could be enabled to add like glossary tags to the bottom of an article? Michael ?

Why I insist on wikipedia? I just think it would otherwise be too much work. If not - I am happy if you get our wiki started and will at least copy my wikipedia-work over

UPDATE:
Edited first paragraphs of wikipedias mesa article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mesa_(computer_graphics) . Is it better now? If not: Would be nice if you could write an own version to compare and discuss what you think is missing or what is too much.