create new tag
, view all tags
Many pages on WikiLearn include lists of resources for a topic -- more recently I have started rating them subjectively, using words like Recommended, Recommended for Specific Needs, Recommended by Others, No Recommendation,or Not Recommended.

This page explains my intended meaning of those ratings. (This is somewhat of a first draft, especially with respect to the #Guidelines_for_Rating_Resources.)

Feel free to add or rerate resources, but if you do so, please follow the guidelines in #Guidelines_for_Rating_Resources below.

See AboutThesePages.



I've read or skimmed these, possibly not thoroughly or completely, but enough to believe that they are very useful for the general subject of the page.

Recommended for Specific Needs
I've read or skimmed these, possibly not thoroughly or completely, but enough to believe that they are useful for specific items related to the subject of the page. Try to include some words to explain for what specific needs the resource is recommended. (Sometimes that may be implicit in your description, sometimes you may need to add some extra words.)

Recommended by Others
These links have been recommended by others, but I haven't visited them or haven't read or skimmed them enough to make my own evaluation.

No Recommendation
I have not read or skimmed these to any significant extent, and certainly not enough to list them as recommended, but I list them here as they may be useful, and for further evaluation in the future (by me or others).

Not Recommended
I have read or skimmed these enough to believe that they are not really helpful, either generally for this topic or for specific needs.

Guidelines for Rating Resources

If You Are Not Me

Please add your name to the resource listing -- if you are unwilling to list your name, please add resources under the "No Recommendation" category only.

If you are adding several resources, I suggest you create a "marker" using, for example, your initials (avoid duplicates), and then add the marker to:

  • each resource you add, and
  • your name on the contributors list

For example, I might create the marker "rhk", add that to the beginning of every resource listing I add, something like this:

  • (rhk) <a resource listing>

and then, under contributors, make my entry look like this:

or this?

(The second is probably better to more easily avoid duplicates -- the entries could even be sorted alphabetically by the marker -- but, will there ever be enough contributors to make that an issue?)

If someone else has already used "rhk" I might make my marker "rhk01" or something similar.

No Matter Who You Are

I prefer that we be conservative about listing a resource under the "Not Recommended" category.

I have not yet (IIRC) listed a resource as "Not Recommended". If I do, I would follow these guidelines:

  • Consider adding (leaving) it under the "No Recommendation" category, perhaps with a comment. This is based on a few premises, including:

    • Even if it's not useful for you, it may be useful for someone else with a different perspective, level of experience, or whatever.

    • My mother, who said "If you can't say something nice about somebody, don't say anything at all." That is not to say that we should never list a resource under "Not Recommended", just that I want to be conservative about doing so. (And, I need to think about this some more -- after all, we'd be putting it under the category "Not Recommended", not a category that says (objectively sounding) "This is Absolutely Useless Drivel".)

  • Provide reason(s) why it is not recommended:

    • A reason could be that the information is outdated. If possible to determine, try to specify something about (why | when) it is outdated. For example, "information seems to be aimed at versions of the Linux kernel before 2.4, and thus deals with ipchains rather than iptables". Certainly that can be shortened, as long as it remains clear -- maybe "covers ipchains (pre Linux 2.4) rather than iptables".

    • I suppose (hesitantly) that not liking somebody's writing style could be an acceptable reason, but I think we should be judging the content more than the writing style. Consider listing the resource under "No Recommendation", possibly with a reason, like "I had trouble reading this because of the style, which is (focused too much on a (newbie | expert) | uses (corny | annoying) humor | <some other reason to be specified at the time you add the resource to the list>). (I suppose we (can | will) develop a shorthand -- "annoyingly aimed at newbie", "annoying humor", or whatever.


Page Ratings

Edit | Attach | Watch | Print version | History: r2 < r1 | Backlinks | Raw View | Raw edit | More topic actions
Topic revision: r2 - 2002-08-01 - RandyKramer
  • Learn about TWiki  
  • Download TWiki
This site is powered by the TWiki collaboration platform Powered by PerlCopyright 1999-2017 by the contributing authors. All material on this collaboration platform is the property of the contributing authors.
Ideas, requests, problems regarding WikiLearn? WebBottomBar">Send feedback
See TWiki's New Look