NEAR Wiki - Reorganisation & Update - Request for Feedback

Happy Friday! :tada:

Chiming in with an update on the NEAR Wiki Development Plan.


The NEAR Wiki organisation has been completely overhauled and pushed to the

The goal of the reorganisation was to make the Wiki simpler to navigate, less cluttered, and more concise.

Old Layout

New Layout

Please do take a moment or two to check the new layout out and let us know what feedback you guys have.


Originally, we were setting out to organise the Wiki in ‘personas’, so dedicated routes for developers, community members, and NEAR holders.

We’ve reflected that somewhat with a more simplified version. Now, the Wiki is organised into the following categories:

Something missing? Let us know! We’re on track to making the NEAR Wiki the go-to source for information in the NEAR Ecosystem.


Good morning. Looks awesome :wave:


Glad to hear it, thank you! :tada:


Hi @David_NEAR ,

Thanks for driving this effort, it’s definitely important to make wiki into a powerful onboarding tool.

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.

TLDR: I find current structure very confusing and really hard to find information. Some information is missing. Links are broken. Content has typos.

Starting from landing page:

Previously we had explanation of what is NEAR, why NEAR and some major directions to go next to explore Wiki.
Right now it has almost no information and super unclear where to go from here.

The sections like “Create and Learn” doesn’t really make sense to me.
Section like “Community” would make sense only later after I already familiarized myself with NEAR, not as a first thing.

Going 3 level in to just get a link make no sense to me.

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.

Generally, I would prefer to reduce level of depth to max 2.

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.

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.

Instead bringing more information to NEAR Token - NEAR Wiki and removing extra indirection doing it would be great.

Similarly just bring main info into Validators - NEAR Wiki vs creating a separate indirection and require extra click. Plus this page right now linking to non existing pages. Also this info (validator economics, hardware, etc) should be on the wiki in the first place anyway.

There is no Stake Wars right now. It’s a different program. About - NEAR Wiki

Also it’s worth improving the titles of pages , as they currently show up just as “About” for links like About - NEAR Wiki

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

“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.



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

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

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.

Absolutely! Will be aiming to minimise external links.

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:

Is much simpler to follow than the old Wiki layout:

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

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 :100:

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:

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.

You can find them here: wiki/ at 6add31877c3f0e780ffa2efb6f33f4c6d6080ccb · near/wiki · GitHub or wiki/ at 3237758be44dcdbf8e1c066e4a9730d658a98523 · near/wiki · GitHub for older content and overall in the history of github.

Agree, this means that information that is for NF people and not relevant to Wiki user, it should be in a separate place instead of in the place where we want most people to go.

I see bunch of stuff like templates for projects going to specific sections in Wiki and sections specific to NF personnel and operations - going to separate NF wiki.

Thank you!

Agree, 100% - basically move the internal info that’s on Notion to a NF focused Wiki :white_check_mark:

@illia Thanks for all this great feedback! What do you think about using as a community-driven wiki, alongside our GitBook?

Folks, this need to be fixed ASAP.

Please rollback to the old structure if you can’t fix it right now.

Hey, I don’t seem to have the rollback functionality.

Do you or @jlwaugh ?