Hi Adam, Adam Porter <a...@alphapapa.net> writes:
> Yes, I'd be glad for it to be listed on Worg. Feel free to add it if > you like, or I might add it myself after I add a bit more content. I'll let you add a link to your page on Worg when you have the time. > I was thinking about working on Worg rather than making yet another > resource, but: > > 1. I saw you mention that you're planning to reorganize Worg's content > soon, and I wouldn't want to interfere with that. Just to tell you a bit more about my plan: I will take the time to work on Worg next week, creating a dedicated branch and publishing it on orgmode.org/worg-next/ or something. > 2. I sometimes feel hesitant to put a lot of effort into curating and > organizing content on Worg because, like all wikis, that work can easily > be invalidated if others come along later and add content in random > places. Yes, I understand. Worg was a place to gather contributions when the Org users formed a small dedicated group. Org's "community" is larger now, and I think Org should be a place with less textual contents and more links to useful stuff. Like a giant structured FAQ, more than a giant... mess. > One of my goals for this "org-almanac" is to catalog content in a > somewhat canonical way, to avoid the "wiki effect." For this project, > I'd rather have less content that's organized more clearly, than have > lots of content scattered about. Of course, I don't presume to say that > the way I've done it is the best way, and I'm experimenting as I go. > > Anyway, do you have any more thoughts about these issues? I think that your goals for org-almanac resemble the ones I have for Worg: less content, clear structure, make it more maintainable, even collectively. Without sacrificing the current richness, of course. This will be more tangible when I start pushing worg-next/. Thanks, -- Bastien
