> Seriously: fuck wikis. They are bad and terrible. Do not use them. Take the time and effort to write some real documentation instead.
As a counterpoint, a well-maintained wiki in the right situation can make the difference between confusion and enlightenment. A wiki isn't a substitute for proper documentation, but it can be an effective supplement for things like "the docs didn't cover this particular corner case very well, so here's what I did to resolve it, and if anyone can improve on it, have at it".
I also disagree with the assertions that wikis as documentation (instead of as a supplement thereof) are inherently bad in and of themselves, but I do agree that they won't magically populate themselves; the authors of the system in question would be wise to produce the wiki's content themselves and be actively monitoring for erroneous edits, at which point - as the author suggests - said documentation might as well be checked into version control alongside the rest of the code.
I agree. A coherent narrative helps to teach newcomers or old timers who want to sharpen their saws.
A crowd is at a tremendous disadvantage when called upon to provide a singular vision. The crowd shines when a job demands completeness.
Once the newcomers or old hands take their lessons and return to their work, they're going to run into unpredictable issues that would require a tremendous breadth of coverage for any one knowledge source to handle. That's where a wiki like the one for Arch can be a big help.
> Seriously: fuck wikis. They are bad and terrible. Do not use them. Take the time and effort to write some real documentation instead.
As a counterpoint, a well-maintained wiki in the right situation can make the difference between confusion and enlightenment. A wiki isn't a substitute for proper documentation, but it can be an effective supplement for things like "the docs didn't cover this particular corner case very well, so here's what I did to resolve it, and if anyone can improve on it, have at it".
I also disagree with the assertions that wikis as documentation (instead of as a supplement thereof) are inherently bad in and of themselves, but I do agree that they won't magically populate themselves; the authors of the system in question would be wise to produce the wiki's content themselves and be actively monitoring for erroneous edits, at which point - as the author suggests - said documentation might as well be checked into version control alongside the rest of the code.