NEAR Wiki - Reorganisation & Update - Request for Feedback

[David_NEAR]

Hey!

@illia

First question - is this already migrated to Docusaurus? Currently it still says there “Powered by GitBook” while NEAR Wiki Development Plan - Feedback Requested! says the migration will be done by Nov 22.

Not yet, I should have made this update more clear:

@David_NEAR

This week - Synch with James on the migration to Docusaurus. Once the Wiki is aligned on Gitbook, migrating to Docusaurus is straightforward.

@illia

Previously we had explanation of what is NEAR, why NEAR and some major directions to go next to explore Wiki.

These disappeared due to the Gitbook update and are unrecoverable. James is building them again.

@illia

Some information is missing. Links are broken. Content has typos.

The content isn’t finalised and, for the most part, has been crowdsourced from elsewhere. I’m going to sweep through the Wiki and update/flag content after we’ve got the structure down.

@illia

At least provide information that person can read vs linking to external docs and blogs. People have come to Wiki and would like to get the summary of everything here.

Absolutely! Will be aiming to minimise external links.

@illia

I personally liked way more having major sections with visible subsections under them vs ones that open - meaning I need to click on stuff to find what is there (because names of sections like aspirational Learn is not very clear). I’m ok if there is a clear study we have that this structure is better though.

I don’t have any data to back up the reasoning as to why I moved forward with this restructure, other than anecdotal evidence. Those I’ve spoken to are in agreement that the formatting here:

The hub for those interested in learning, building, or running a node on...

Is much simpler to follow than the old Wiki layout:

NEARVerse Portal | NEAR Wiki - Old Format

@illia

For Token Balance - NEAR Wiki – unclear why are we actually showing the RPC request to the user? I would not expect people reading Wiki know what this means.

For sure, and just to reiterate, there was no additional content added/amended in this restructure. It was formatting only.

@illia

Generally, I agree on reducing the number of sections to way lower than what happened before. From my perspective:

• General: covering everything from why NEAR, basics of NEAR like account model and token, and any other FAQ people have,
• Engage (what ways engage with NEAR: guilds, projects, education, etc. This is where will be a guide how to start a project on NEAR, and what are ways to leverage NF, legal considerations and etc.
• Technology (this starts with how NEAR works and goes into how things are built, research and more),
• Validators (fixing content but otherwise is fine) and

Makes sense but I think it might look overcrowded if we reduce the categories and reduce the max level of depth to 2. Will gladly test it out though

@illia

“NF Public Docs” section makes little sense to me here. It’s content should go into one of the sections above. The reality that projects don’t really care about NF - they care about their success so that content should live in sections of how projects will be successful.

So this one was a tricky one. I’ve siloed that information because it doesn’t really seem to fit within any other category and I wanted to mitigate the risk that we confuse users.

For example:

https://wiki.near.org/near-foundation-public-docs/people-team/humans-at-near-foundation/expenses/home-office-equipment-and-technology

How relevant is this to the average NEAR Wiki user?

I’m all for the open and transparent nature of information sharing within NEAR, but I fear that if we pile all internal documents into it we risk diluting more relevant information for NEAR Community Members.