One of your points is that information is quickly out of date - I totally agree, and I think with that in mind on the bakery there should be some element of editorial control and natural churn on articles.
For example, how many recent articles are still using $html->input? Maybe when 1.2 is more advanced, say beta, start taking these articles out. I'm not saying destroy them, but maybe a process of updating the methods used to show 1.2 functionality. Either that, or maybe a simpler way would be to check is version < 1.2 and put a "This article has been depricated" in bright red at the top. Either way, it let's noobs know the article is no longer valid. Tane On 4/12/07, John David Anderson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Apr 12, 2007, at 3:04 PM, savagekabbage wrote: > > > > > Yes, that's exactly why it was taken down. However, while CakePHP has > > a lot of documentation on the web, the API, and the forums... Most of > > it is too hard to grasp or too steep for newbies to handle. There are > > countless newbies who have/have had trouble learning the framework > > (including myself) and I believe this will be a good resource for > > future CakePHP prospects. > > > > I don't see how a wiki can be any less organized or correct than a > > Google group, so I'm going to move forward with this. > > savagekabbage, > > I've had the most first-hand experience with this, so let me chime in. > > First, I want to stress one thing - any non-official documentation > effort only makes it harder for newbs to get up and running. The very > best thing you can do, is come talk to me to see how we can beef up > the current, official docs. We love bloggers. We love forum posters. > We love any good press, but if you want your work to have the most > positive impact, get your words in the official docs. That's where > people are going to look first. That's where we'll want them to look > first. > > Secondly, the Bakery is already filling the role of the old and > (thankfully) dead CakePHP Wiki. There were a number of problems that > we realized after using a wiki: > > 1. Information becomes outdated quickly, and becomes a source of > misinformation quickly > 2. Well meaning folks writing incorrect information was happening too > much > 3. There was no way to consistently tell what version of Cake a given > piece of content was for. > 4. Wikis grow organically and are not often well organized unless > vigilantly moderated and pruned > > I won't disagree that there were some great articles. But those > articles can now be housed in the Bakery. We can approve and maintain > an extremely high level of quality there. Its a win for everyone - > the community can contribute, and we can forestall and possible > misinformation. > > I should also add that this google group is not a documentation > effort, it is a support effort, which has a different aim. > > Thirdly, we'd ask that you do not use the CakePHP logo on your site > like you have it now - it makes it appear that the site is official, > which will cause confusion. > > I think we're all after the same thing here - is there a reason you'd > rather not help to work and strengthen the official documentation > instead? > > Regards, > > John > > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Cake PHP" group. To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/cake-php?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
