on a similar note I've always been shocked by linux distros wikis. you can have:

- near nothing, good luck

- debian, ultra structured, .. hard to digest / boring

- gentoo / arch, barely structured, just enough content to get the gist, yet precise, and a lot more tips for funsies.

this is an art

Even though I have never use Arch, the most helpful texts are always comes from and intended to Arch. That tells something.

fwiw I find the arch approach the best tradeoff of practical and useful. Usually when I go to a distro wiki, I'm not really going there to learn in-depth what it is. I'm going there because I have a problem or a question. So having low-structure (easy to contribute to), high-signal (too much low-interest clutter info tends to contribute to documentation decay) tidbits seems to work out well.

I particularly like that if I have an issue, and I figure it out, I can just pop a quick line in there. h4:"Issues snafucating while running nvidia proprietary driver". Body: "you get this error message. <snip>. This is due to <snip>. Run this command to fix it." And it's already at the quality that people expect.

Yes and this tells a few things about what a good piece of software is. Arch is not easy but it doesn't bloat you, it gives you a few pieces to play, when you have an issue there's a paragraph for you.

Software is often documented as if it was a integral part of the program, but it's wrong on the human level I believe.

Good documentation is hard but, in the current jargon, it is a value multiplier — or rather, poor or missing documentation is a value multiplier with a factor ≪1.

Good documentation also needs ‘testing’ by someone who is not already familiar with the content.

Halfmoon look real nice, as does the documentation. Kudos

I agree. Out of curiosity, what was this project?

I edited the parent comment with a link to the docs.