SanDisk Sansa® e200 V2 USB?

[chrisjj]

The person editing the wiki (it could be you) judges if it's necessary or not

The problem being surely when there is no-one editing the wiki in a particular instance. I don't see a mechanism that places the responsibility for documentation on the person doing the coding that gives rise to that documentation. (I am used to a methodology in which the documentation comes first.) I see material that has been out-dated by code progress and I amend them as best I can, but I am far from best qualified. However that's the wiki but I am impressed to see how well the manual in maintained.

[Llorean]

Well, the manual is the only "official" documentation. The wiki is specifically less "official." We still reference people to it, but it's user maintained. Even MediaMonkey (which you've referred to before) references its wiki as "Community Contributed Documentation."

[chrisjj]

the manual is the only "official" documentation.

What does "official" mean?

The wiki is specifically less "official." ...  it's user maintained.

Except when it isn't

[Llorean]

"Official" means the manual is the only thing we claim should be up to date, correct, and maintained by the Rockbox project. The wiki is where we reference people for things like FAQs and other community written / contributed information. It is also used as a repository for development information. But when there's conflict between the manual and the wiki, the manual is the one that should be correct (if it's not, then bug reports against it may be filed).

Except when it isn't

Well, again, I don't see you volunteering to maintain anything. You've complained that we don't "assign" (your word) people to do it, yet you completely ignored an attempt to assign you. You've offered the solution of hoping users volunteer to come forward and do it, but we already hope users come forward and volunteer to do it. We just don't expect them to say "I'm taking responsibility for X page" but rather just update whatever they know or feel comfortable doing so.

If you feel it should be more thorough, shouldn't you be the one doing it more thoroughly since it's user maintained?

[chrisjj]

"Official" means the manual is the only thing we claim should be up to date, correct,

That's sad. Because lots of the other documentation is really useful and would be more so if it was up-to-date.

and maintained by the Rockbox project. The wiki is where we reference people for things like FAQs and other community written / contributed information.

I'd be interested to know what defines "the Rockbox project" excluding the community contributors to the wiki.

You've complained that we don't "assign" (your word) people to do it,

You are mistaken.

yet you completely ignored an attempt to assign you.

I took that assignment as a joke. I really hope this two-week newbie is not your best candidate!

[Llorean]

I'd be interested to know what defines "the Rockbox project" excluding the community contributors to the wiki.

'the Rockbox project' in this context refers to the developers and manual authors who've discussed and decided that the manual should be authoritative - at any given time it should contain accurate and up to date information, and be considered a bug when it does not.

You are mistaken.

One solution is assigning responsibility.

Am I?

yet you completely ignored an attempt to assign you.

I took that assignment as a joke. I really hope this two-week newbie is not your best candidate!

We can't assign people who haven't volunteered. You're the best person who's openly stated that the job should be done. So I ask in all seriousness - will you take responsibility to keeping the wiki up to date, or at least a subsection of pages where you are willing to maintain an active interest in the current development state of Rockbox, verify your information before posting, and accept responsibility when that information is wrong and fix it?

[chrisjj]

"Official" means the manual is the only thing we claim should be up to date, correct, and maintained by the Rockbox project.

'the Rockbox project' in this context refers to the developers and manual authors who've discussed and decided that the manual should be authoritative

A logical tautology, so not very useful.

Am I?

Yes you are mistaken. "One solution is assigning responsibility." is not a complaint.

We can't assign people who haven't volunteered.

I see you made a special exception for me.

will you take responsibility to keeping the wiki up to date, or at least a subsection of pages where you are willing to maintain an active interest in the current development state of Rockbox, verify your information before posting, and accept responsibility when that information is wrong and fix it?

No. I've used Rockbox for only two weeks, and then only in sim. I consider myself unqualified. But I'll continue to make wiki improvements where I see that I am.

[AlexP]

This is getting a bit pointless now, is going round in circles, and is well off the subject of the thread.  Plus, there is another on the same subject: http://forums.rockbox.org/index.php?topic=24616.0   I'm going to close it - if anyone strenuously objects then PM me.