Do we want pdpedia to just be a reference manual of objects?

I think it is a good start. To have a list of Every Object out there, and make clear which are written, and the ones who are not. And discuss in a group of interested people a sort of division of works, strategies... etc.

A nice and simple model must be followed, we could think about expanding pdpedia for other info later, as I believe this is very urgent.

Now, I would really love to collaborate, who is there already for me to join? And whoelse wants to join too?

cheers

---

Message: 5 Date: Tue, 31 Mar 2009 22:09:07 +0100 From: Philip Potter philip.g.potter@gmail.com Subject: Re: [PD] Pdpedia and random generation To: pd-list@iem.at Message-ID: 91dd35300903311409r7608a1cbw9a0d66e8b1075cb3@mail.gmail.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

2009/3/31 Alexandre Porres porres@gmail.com:

...

so we need :someone" to manage the system, ok, but then I see that this problem is kinda well solved, right? But how do you all see the writting of articles? Is it growing out well?

I

...

believe "someone" could also direct how things are going, and that a main team could work on it by fomenting its development and all... right?

Something like a WikiProject on wikipedia? It would be good to have standards on how articles should be formatted and what kind of information should be presented. I see there has been some effort to generate a standard layout for an article on an object, with inlets, outlets, arguments and messages as separate sections; but I can't find a good article to serve as an example for how all articles should look. The best I can find is: http://wiki.puredata.info/en/dac~ http://wiki.puredata.info/en/metro If more articles looked like this, I think pdpedia would be much more useful.

Do we want pdpedia to just be a reference manual of objects, or do we also want to include design patterns such as the [pack 0 0 0 0 0]/[unpack 0 0 0 0 0] idiom mentioned elsethread, tutorials, good practices and suchlike?

Philip