What’s wrong with the old wiki? Why do you want to replace it? Why not just update images and links and install the newest software (mediawiki) and maybe change the CSS?
And where is this new wiki you’re talking about?
And yes, I agree that Wikipedia’s article about Peercoin should be updated, as it leaves the reader thinking that Peercoin is dead, as it has only one last developer (if at all) − who is named Sunny King − and doesn’t mention any recent developments or projects around Peercoin.
It’s maintainer gave up on it. Beside, it is old software and is too complex for our needs. What we’re doing now is much nicer.
I noticed, that the FAQ are very outdated (2014!!!). We should revise them. I.e. market cap 2017, tell something about version 0.6 (FAQ talks about version 0.2), tell something about the 1% reward, which @Peerchemist calls compensation instead of reward (should be explained!), explain the 0.01 PPC/kB (per kB, not per transaction, as the FAQ says!!).
As the FAQ is on the main site, it should be updated without delay, because this gives the impression, that Peercoin is dead (not maintained).
I would help translating.
The old wiki isn’t really good enough by any standard. I don’t mean this as criticism of the person who put in a huge effort into writing this. But by all means, considering what information people seek when going to the wiki, a very short description on how to install the wallet and 1 paragraph of text saying that PPC has PoS isn’t really going to cut it if we want to advance Peercoin.
It’s been a while since I have really had to write lengthier forms of documentation, but hopefully over the next months we’ll get the wiki fleshed out and start writing a wiki that is worth visiting even for people not interested in Peercoin, but solely interested in how PoS works, and what consequences and security features it offers.
I think it is a great idea and looks nice, but it sounds very ambitious in its scope. It can be difficult to get the most knowledgeable people to find time to work on it, and even more difficult to keep it updated. With the current wiki very few developers contributed, and the one who probably contributed the most is no longer active.
As it will be on the main website it will also be seen as more official than a wiki. The vision of how Peercoin should be described has changed a huge amount over the years, and will likely change a lot in the future. At the end of the day it is just an interpretation and it is creating a huge amount of work attempting to have this explained fully and up to date.
I’m not trying to discourage, but think based on the experience with the current wiki it might be better to have a stripped-down version with just important info developers need to know, and maybe whitepapers etc.
If the homepage is overhauled that should help explain Peercoin’s key points from a marketing point of view.
I think the wiki should explain:
There could be several subarticles explaining techniques and algorithms. With many examples, please. So that everybody can see the advantages (or disadvantages?).
I believe things are different now though. We have a dedicated team working to make Peercoin great. Yes they are busy developing, but I’m sure they can find the time to look over our work and give suggestions from time to time. Before we were dealing with a time period where Sunny was the main developer, there was no team and interest was dwindling due to a shrinking market cap. It was a bad time to start a wiki.
It was also a complicated software to use, which is another reason people did not bother with it. I personally have used it only once or twice. I don’t care for the non-linear format of the software because it forces the user to click on lots of links in order to see all the content.
Anyway, I’m just trying to say that this time I think it will be different. If we’re going to commit to using this as a main source to educate people, then we’re going to have motivation to keep it updated. We did not really have this goal in mind with the previous wiki, so we didn’t keep up on it.
I’m not sure the vision has changed, but our understanding of the network has improved with time. Maybe things like the backbone argument and pushing transactions to off-chain networks can be left out as I don’t think there has been enough discussion on it from our developers, but there’s no reason why we can’t cover the basics of Peercoin which shouldn’t change, benefits of the hybrid approach over pure PoW, security, governance, etc…
We will have these topics covered on the main website yes, but that’s geared more for the type of marketing where text is limited. We still need a place where people can get a more indepth understanding of things.
I realise my previous post wasn’t very clear because I was kind of arguing two different points. I think my main point is that I disagree with having the docs as the “backbone” of the website as mentioned in chat. I think there should be separation between the material newcomers would see, and those with an extra interest would see. If there is no clear divide then I think it makes things very complicated and hard to maintain properly.
I’m not against having lots of documentation, but against having a kind of official grand narrative as the main piece on the website that everything is connected to. Maybe that’s not what you mean, but it’s what I interpreted it as.
If you think of the average person visiting the site, they will read the homepage to find out whether it is something that interests them, then click to find some basic guide on how to get started etc. In my opinion all of this basic information should be separate from the advanced information section that less than 1% of people will be interested in.
If they end up clicking on something on the homepage when they want to find out how to mint, but get taken to a page with a minting guide that is just above a 10-page essay on “the economics and governance of decentralised networks” or something, it will scare people away.
So I don’t think the plan should be to create the documentation, and then create the rest of the website based on that. I think everything the average person needs to know written in simple language should be the focus of the bulk of the website, with the rest hidden away in an advanced or developer section.
If there is too much emphasis placed on making people understand Peercoin then it makes it appear boring and elitist, something it has always suffered from.
You are overthinking this. We need docs/wiki and we have people interested in working on it so it is going to happen now, it is basically simple as that.
Alright, fair enough. My comments are less about having a new docs/wiki, and more about how I think the website should be overall. I think the way described here could require more work and maintenance than necessary in the long run, but since it’s only a starting plan it might not turn out like that.
Hey guys, the website should be here soon, but just so you know there is no reason to wait. We can start figuring out the navigation and order of content right now. This will need to be a community effort to write and maintain. I will try my best to be involved, but there are currently a lot of projects going on that are sucking up my free time. I hope everyone is aware that they can help contribute to this.
Also, in case you didn’t see it in the marketing thread, Kazzkiq posted a teaser screenshot, along with a sample website…
@kazzkiq has completed all basic functionality and the documentation website is now live…
Once we are able to get enough decent content on there, we’ll change the domain name to docs.peercoin.net and remove the warning about sharing.
Hope to make many languages.This content cannot be copied.(The right mouse button doesn’t work)
Once we finish the english version of the docs, translation is the next big goal.
This is now fixed.
I looked into docs website and thought that this might be something that I would be able to contribute in.
Site has link which instructs how to write to github, but gives no direction on how to collaborate with other writers. Like @Sentinelrv mentioned above, I think there should be clear structure for the contents and plan to make it happen. How do you manage this project and guide contributors to right tasks (texts)? For example, what part of text could I start working on?
I wanted to have started writing the intro and basics section by now, however at the same time this wiki software became available, I got involved in some other projects, 1. the logo for Indicium, 2. a redesigned logo for the upcoming PeerKeeper wallet, and 3. a much larger design project I’m working on for the Peercoin Team. 1 and 2 are done, but I’m still working on 3. I hope to be done within the next week or two, but it’s not guaranteed.
Once I’m finished, I would like to be able to start working on the wiki project. Before I start though, I would like to talk with the team about the exact messaging we want to deliver in the basics section. I think there aren’t any contributors right now because they need some direction first and nobody wants to get the introduction wrong, since there is a lot of different things that could be talked about and we want to make sure to get specific info across to the reader. Once the basics are written though and there is some actual content we can work with, I think others will start to chip in with feedback and suggestions to improve or additional sections to include and such.
I think the best place to assign people to specific tasks (and follow progress) will be exactly where the project source code resides. We can use GitHub Issues and create discussions on a section level. We can then assign labels to help identify which issues are related to what.
Each section will have its own Issue, this way we can discuss about that specific piece of the docs alone. Section issues should not be closed until that section is 100% written and revised.
Bugs and enchancements would get their own Issue. Found a bug? New Issue. Think some feature should be added? Another Issue.
As of now, those are the labels that will be used in the to identify the issues categories:
Writing: Label used on issues focused only on writing pieces of the documentation.
Section: Defined when the Issue is related to a whole section of the documentation.
Discussion: Wanna discuss something that isn’t fully defined yet? Use this label.
Enhancement: Ask for some feature in the project (which isn’t related to the text itself, but the website).
Bug: Report a bug in the project (which isn’t related to the text itself, but the website).
Labels can also be combined. If I want to discuss about some specific section, I can add discussion and section labels to that Issue. This way I believe it will be easier to focus on specific points of the documentation.
GitHub Issues are also good because you can assign people to them. So I can explicitly say that Joe and Martha are working on that section and everyone will be able to see that and know who actually is working on what.
I believe it may be a little confusing in the beginning (especially to those who never used things such as GitHub or Git), but you can always check the already open Issues to learn by example.
Docs Issues can be found here: https://github.com/peercoin/docs/issues
This thread will keep being used because we a place to discuss the documentation as a whole, roadmap, status review and other generic topics that fit better in the forum.
@Sentinelrv what do you think?
###We should use Github Issues to manage who is doing what in the docs.
Count me among that group as I’ve never really used GitHub before, but this does seem like a good way to organize it.
I just wanted to mention that Peerchemist started writing a chapter on how Peercoin relates to other networks. Feedback would be helpful to improve. You can see it here…
The new wiki looks great and will be awesome when done 
However, I have some doubts similar to what @skull and @river seem to be getting at. That is, it looks like something that will take quite a long time and be putting the cart before the horse.
Shouldn’t the landing page be updated first? Just some small changes like replacing the current banner with our new slogan “The Pioneer of PoS” and removing the dated video etc. could add millions to our market cap. For example, when RISE recently updated their landing page their market cap more than quadrupled.
I other words, I think now is the time to attract investors first to increase our market cap and naturally attract interest from developers.
