Early last year I submitted a post to groups.drupal.org about an idea I'd had for a new way in which people could learn how to do Drupal:
Drupalversity would address a number of shortcomings in Drupal documentation viewed on the macro level. There is tons of great documentation out there, both in the form of books and (usually free) online resources, but this documentation is, by and large, reactive. If you have a particular thing you want to be able to do with Drupal then it is often possible to find documentation that will help you do what you want to do and get your project finished. But if you just want to learn more about jQuery and how it works wit Drupal then things are less easy. Worse still is trying to answer the question, "I currently know X, Y and Z about Drupal - what should I learn next?".
The idea was well received and I spent as much of last year developing it as I could. Unfortunately I couldn't get down to actually deploying Drupalversity - 2010 for me was one of those years in which the old John Lennon saying, "life is what happens when you're making other plans", rang true far more times than I care to mention. Perhaps I should have guessed this would be the case when a volcano prevented me from getting to Drupalcon San Francisco :)
One things that has happened since I first proposed the Drupalversity concept is the arrival of the excellent Drupal Answers site on Stackexchange. To some extent this led me to wonder whether there was still a need for Drupalversity, but I've come to the conclusion that there is.
I've also realised that Drupalversity is such a specific idea that it's very difficult for me to explain it in a didactic fashion: and when I do try and explain it via question-and-answer, the idea itself tends to grow new offshoots and focus is lost. Heather James can probably vouch for that, if she remembers the somewhat circular Skype chat we had last year :)
A later conversation with Addison Berry over a few pints in a London pub - by which point I'd managed to distill Drupalversity to six A4 pieces of paper - demonstrated to me that the idea had developed sufficiently that it was at least partly communicable. However, the full extent of the idea can perhaps best be summed up by Addison's remark that "it's kind of like multiple pubs". We were sitting in a pub. There's probably a term in communication theory that applies to situations like that.
Once resources are added to the repository, they will, in part, organise themselves organically: all else being equal, it's a reasonable assumption that if resource 'A' is added by one person and resource 'B', covering the same subject area, is added by ten people, then resource 'B' could be said to be ten times for useful. Furthermore, once resources have been added to the repository, trusted site members can go about categorising those resources and smoothing out any anomalies that arise.
I'd be interested to hear any comments anyone has on this, especially relating to ways in which the work that is proposed may be duplicated elsewhere on the web: the last thing I want to do, to smash together two analogies, is to re-invent the wheel and then try and push it uphill :)