Beefy Boxes and Bandwidth Generously Provided by pair Networks
No such thing as a small change
 
PerlMonks  

Page not found issue while accessing a link from perl monk's tutorial

by jesuashok (Curate)
on May 10, 2007 at 03:04 UTC ( #614525=monkdiscuss: print w/ replies, xml ) Need Help??

dear monks,

I am sorry if this issue has been discussed already.

Today morning I was browsing through perl monk's tutorials link. In that I was reading Perl Object Oriented Meta-Tutorial. from that node I was trying to access the following link Object Oriented Perl, I got the message saying that Not Found. Perl Object Oriented Meta-Tutorial was created by btrott, but he is not around in perl monks for 49weeks. where can I get help regarding this . Is it possible to contact the btrott in any other way ?

Comment on Page not found issue while accessing a link from perl monk's tutorial
Re: Page not found issue while accessing a link from perl monk's tutorial
by naikonta (Curate) on May 10, 2007 at 03:18 UTC
    I found the link: http://www.manning.com/conway/. Any monks with appropriate priv can fix the link in the node, please?

    Open source softwares? Share and enjoy. Make profit from them if you can. Yet, share and enjoy!

      Sorry, we don't do this. btrott still owns that node, regardless of how long he's been gone. See What do Janitors do? for further details.

      As a next best thing, you can post a reply to Perl Object Oriented Meta-Tutorial with the informational update.

      A word spoken in Mind will reach its own level, in the objective world, by its own weight
        Then you should probably hide the message at the bottom of the tutorial that says you already did fix some links in it in 2005 :-).

        Part of the point of Tutorials is that they are further down the spectrum toward "meant to be perfected" and away from "historical writings owned by their author" (similar to Categorized Q+A, but not as far as that, at least not currently). But that is a fuzzy area and one we haven't really dealt with yet. Previously I've noted that if a tutorial's original author is not available to improve it at the point when someone sees improvements to be made, that tutorial could be taken over by a new maintainer or by pedagogues, for example. Precisely the best way to do this isn't obvious to me, however.

        In this particular case, the improvements are quite small and don't take much away from the original "authorship" and so we may come to the consensus that such a change is allowed to be made by janitors because this is a tutorial. This particular case also involves a very old tutorial by an author who hasn't visited recently, so it may be appropriate to transfer ownership of the node to pedagogues while adding brief content to the top of the node noting (and thanking) the original author and explaining why ownership was changed.

        In this particular case, I think that just having a janitor fix the links is the least distruptive of those choices so I think that is what I prefer. But I'd like to hear whether others feel this is appropriate, especially from those who feel strongly that janitors should not change content. Do y'all agree that tutorials should be treated somewhat differently? I still think that significant changes to content (yes, that is somewhat vague, intentionally) should not be made w/o modification of ownership. And modification of ownership is a tricky step to take and might best be done by always creating a new version of the tutorial that just links to the prior version while updating Tutorials to link to this new version.

        - tye        

Log In?
Username:
Password:

What's my password?
Create A New User
Node Status?
node history
Node Type: monkdiscuss [id://614525]
Approved by tye
help
Chatterbox?
and the web crawler heard nothing...

How do I use this? | Other CB clients
Other Users?
Others meditating upon the Monastery: (7)
As of 2014-10-31 11:39 GMT
Sections?
Information?
Find Nodes?
Leftovers?
    Voting Booth?

    For retirement, I am banking on:










    Results (216 votes), past polls