Can we please allow for BAD docs? Hear me out.

[twMat]

I'm addressing this to @Jermolene , because you're the gate keeper, but anyone is welcome to comment.

Jeremy, if individual doc tiddlers on tw.com were allowed to be "not great" then several community members would probably be willing to write them. IMO "some info" is better than "no info". And even "faulty info" can often easily be improved because the bottle neck for the docs is not to correct them but to have be merged to begin with, so if that is easy then improving is easy! And the mere fact that some info is incorrect is in itself a trigger for people to correct it!

Such articles could feature a disclaimer, e.g "This document is a draft and may not live up the the official documentation standards. It needs fact checking and ensuring quality standards." or some such, and it could feature a link to some designated forum thread (where it can be collectively developed). If an article eventually is good enough according to you, then you "flip a switch" and the disclaimers etc disappear and it is now a regular doc tiddler.

The idea is not crazy: Several wikipedia articles start off with some form of a disclaimer about the content, for example our very own wikipedia article here. That article is unarguably still useful - and the alternative to have no article would of course be really unfortunate for everyone.

"No, no ugly ducklings in my family", mother Duck said.
So the ugly duckling never was.

[Jermolene]

Hi @twMat I had a look at the unmarked PRs targeting the tiddlywiki-com branch; there are currently 36 of them:

https://github.com/TiddlyWiki/TiddlyWiki5/pulls?q=is%3Apr+is%3Aopen+base%3Atiddlywiki-com

There are certainly some that are ready to merge, and I will pay attention to them as soon as I can.

I think that what would be really helpful would be a volunteer to be editor of the documentation.

[twMat]

a volunteer to be editor of the documentation.

What do you actually mean with this? For example, would it be someone appointed rights to accept PR's? Or would it mean someone to take on the task to go through the open doc PR's and comment on stuff, only to then leave it at that perhaps with a final "OK Jeremy, this one is ready"? Or does it mean to somehow author the list of reportedly missing docs? Or what do you mean?

[Jermolene]

I was indeed thinking of somebody else as documentation editor, including reviewing and merging documentation PRs.

With that said, do let me know of any docs PRs that need merging.