Difference between revisions of "Main Page"
m |
m |
||
| Line 10: | Line 10: | ||
==== Isn't this stuff already on a real government website somewhere? ==== | ==== Isn't this stuff already on a real government website somewhere? ==== | ||
Maybe. Government websites come and go, and in many cases documents, pages, database applications, and whole domains are removed from public availability and not replaced. Most of the time this happens when employees or priorities change, but in many cases non-technical content managers just can't keep up when an agency switches from ftp scripts to Adobe Dreamweaver, to Oracle ContentDB, to Microsoft Sharepoint, to 'let's just shoehorn EVERYTHING into an ArcGIS storymap'. Things break, especially websites after the idiot programmer has gone home. | Maybe. Government websites come and go, and in many cases documents, pages, database applications, and whole domains are removed from public availability and not replaced. Most of the time this happens when employees or priorities change, but in many cases non-technical content managers just can't keep up when an agency switches from ftp and CGI scripts to Adobe Dreamweaver, to Oracle ContentDB, to Microsoft Sharepoint, to 'let's just shoehorn EVERYTHING into an ArcGIS storymap'. Things break, especially websites after the idiot programmer has gone home. | ||
Plus, government websites generally have bad design, irritating 'webmasters', | Plus, government websites generally have bad design, irritating 'webmasters', boneheaded policies, and mid-century publishing routines. Meetings, trainings, delays. Eventually the CIO decides to discontinue PHP or the Ministry of Communication changes its mind about scientists having blogs, and pages disappear again. No, but thanks no. | ||
==== This looks like Wikipedia, is this Wikipedia? ==== | ==== This looks like Wikipedia, is this Wikipedia? ==== | ||
No, but these pages use [https://www.mediawiki.org/ MediaWiki] software, which was developed to run Wikipedia. Wikipedia is different though, in that it has [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Wikipedia_content_guidelines rules] and a society of admins to enforce what goes on in their articles. In most cases, information on these pages would not fit Wikipedia's model of only having independently sourced articles about [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability notable] topics. | No, but these pages use [https://www.mediawiki.org/ MediaWiki] software, which was developed to run Wikipedia. Wikipedia is different though, in that it has [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Wikipedia_content_guidelines rules] and a society of admins to enforce what goes on in their articles. In most cases, information on these pages would not fit Wikipedia's model of only having independently sourced articles about [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability notable] topics. | ||
Latest revision as of 19:21, 5 March 2023
What is all this?
These pages contain corrected and annotated versions of documentation mostly to do with wilderness and 'wilderness character' in the United States. So far we have:
USFS Wilderness Character Monitoring Technical Guide
Eventually we will have it all. Promises promises.
Isn't this stuff already on a real government website somewhere?
Maybe. Government websites come and go, and in many cases documents, pages, database applications, and whole domains are removed from public availability and not replaced. Most of the time this happens when employees or priorities change, but in many cases non-technical content managers just can't keep up when an agency switches from ftp and CGI scripts to Adobe Dreamweaver, to Oracle ContentDB, to Microsoft Sharepoint, to 'let's just shoehorn EVERYTHING into an ArcGIS storymap'. Things break, especially websites after the idiot programmer has gone home.
Plus, government websites generally have bad design, irritating 'webmasters', boneheaded policies, and mid-century publishing routines. Meetings, trainings, delays. Eventually the CIO decides to discontinue PHP or the Ministry of Communication changes its mind about scientists having blogs, and pages disappear again. No, but thanks no.
This looks like Wikipedia, is this Wikipedia?
No, but these pages use MediaWiki software, which was developed to run Wikipedia. Wikipedia is different though, in that it has rules and a society of admins to enforce what goes on in their articles. In most cases, information on these pages would not fit Wikipedia's model of only having independently sourced articles about notable topics.