why not some common sense?

Posted Nov 6, 2003 20:08 UTC (Thu) by AnswerGuy (guest, #1256) [Link]

We have discussed ways to provide online feedback while continuing to fundamentally be a periodical with regular, static issues. We will continue to explore ways to do that through our new site at linuxgazette.net.

One idea has been to create something more like a wiki page for each article. The idea is that the original article, as published, would be protected, and that all commentary on it would be in an editable region below the original. The problem with threads is that they grow ever longer, generally digressing and becoming less relevant --- especially after about 20 comments or three levels of nesting. The idea of the wiki would encourage people to retain only those corrections, updates and comments that are relevant.

We've also considered creating a wiki area for the development of new articles. The idea would be that a prospective author would create their wiki page (and presumably "subscribe" to it for notification of updates). They would then write a draft or outline; others (editors) could then comment on by simply editing that page. When the editorial staff *and the author(s)* reach consensus on the readiness of each article it's scheduled for inclusion in the next issue.

Thus the Linux Gazette doesn't "become" a wiki (or other CMS-driven site) but some sort of CMS becomes part of the production and feedback process.

The "wiki" pages would become part of the site in perpetuity --- so any links or updates to websites, projects, and software in the original article could be maintained by the community at large (without forcing people to wade through endless streams of comment threads). All issues would include links to the canonical home of the article so all readers could easily check for updates even years after the original article was published.

I know I make this sound all wonderfully easy, elegant, and, well, "wonderful." However, the issues are more complex than that. The basic concept doesn't mirror or scale well.

If everyone reading each issue (from a mirror, on their PDA, or from one of the Debian back-issue packages, for example) felt the need to check up on each article --- it would generate orders of magnitude more traffic back to our home site. We're not commercial and not trying to sell advertising (in fact we have no mechanism to accept financial donations). So driving too much traffic back to our home site is counter-productive.

(Realistically I suspect that about one in ten readers would feel compelled to check for updates just after reading an article --- or, conversely that the average reader would only find a few items in any given issue sufficiently relevant to their immediate needs to need any such updates. So I may be over-exaggerating this problem).

Ultimately our goal is to be an even more vital part of the LDP. We want relevant and useful information to be available to all Linux users in a format that's more interesting and just different than the formal FAQs, HOWTOs and guides.

Collectively we (the people who've done virtually all of the editorial work for the last 80 issues or so) don't feel that the drupal driven site comes even close to meeting our needs. Unfortunately, we're just volunteers (and only a small group at that) so we can make these improvements overnight.

Please understand that we still deeply appreciate the sponsorship by Phil Hughes and SSC for all these years. However, to us it has become apparent that we must move on and continue to grow. (To him we look like a bunch of long-haired upstarts that are hijacking a franchise that he believes was given to him, personally, by John Fisk; and probably that we're a bunch of Luddites impeding progress, as well).

We recognize that there are two major sides to this story and have strived to understand both. We feel that we (all of us including Phil) where entrusted with the Linux Gazette. We believe that we are trustees of this community project rather than "owners" of it. (We also, generally, don't have an inflated view of our importance --- we're just a little monthly webazine that is only a tiny part of the Linux community; and there are others like Linux Focus that are arguably just as important).

There is also another side to this story --- that of our readership. We regret the confusion and disruption that these events have caused for them.

Jim Dennis, The Linux Gazette "Answer Guy"

(BTW: I did NOT pick that apellation --- and was rather surprised and honored in an embarassed sort of way when it was first applied to me; I've considered that "title" also to be a responsibility --- a goal to strive for).

Posted Nov 6, 2003 20:52 UTC (Thu) by rickmoen (subscriber, #6943) [Link]

ccyoung wrote:

Why not recognize that both needs - a high quality monthly and a more interactive format - are both legitmate?

As Jim Dennis notes, your assumption that the Linux Gazette editors don't is incorrect. We're just trying to deal with the situation we have.

At the time we made our final decision to thank SSC for it's generous seven years of assistance and move Linux Gazette to new hosting, we'd been getting the clear message from Mr. Hughes and his webmaster that they intended to move to having only dynamic content, no monthly issues, and no editors. So, it seemed at that time necessary to move Linux Gazette if it were to continue as a magazine at all. Only after we announced our departure to them (Oct. 28) did SSC reverse policies and hurriedly assemble the rather thin November issue now observable at their site — the one that also purports to be the November Gazette. Hold that thought, please, and bear in mind the situation we were dealing with at the time.

In addition, we found that past issues (not just issue #95, Jon) had been retroactively censored without notice to (or discussion with) the staff — before or after: Requests that they explain that censorship went unanswered. Frequent contributors had started withholding articles because of what was going on between us and SSC management, and overall quality and quantity of material had noticeably declined. And the CMS, when it appeared (initially, with no magazine issue attached) just as we were mailing our departure letter, started housing past LG articles stripped of both author attributions and author copyright notices — which they mostly fixed after we politely pointed this out, though two examples remain of where SSC has wrongfully replaced authors' copyright notices with its own.

So, we gracefully thanked SSC and departed, asking for their help in an orderly transition, and for them to please assign their CMS site some other name and eventually sign over the linuxgazette.com domain -- since at the time their announced intentions were to not publish a magazine on it.

What would be truly constructive would be for SSC to follow through on their original intentions to do something radically different from the Linux Gazette magazine. That might with time become something truly great, and we at Linux Gazette would applaud it. Or, if they want to carry through with their newer policy and publish a magazine, that's perfectly fine with us too. We regret their decision to persist in using a confusing name, and wish they wouldn't do that, but we aren't likely to (say) make legal threats over that.

In general, our attitude is best described as "Two Linux sites instead of one? Good. They're different? Even better."

Posted Nov 17, 2003 2:43 UTC (Mon) by cbbrowne (guest, #10867) [Link]

It seems more effective to not need to go back on a daily? hourly? basis to see if articles have changed...