On Tue, Jan 28, 2003 at 07:55:45PM +0100, Dirk-Willem van Gulik wrote:
>
> > Our project is getting value out of the Wiki, in part because we have
> > non-Committers feeling empowered and able to contribute directly.
>
> People can do the same with patches on mailing list; and seem less likely
> to abuse that. Perhaps the simple validation (and display) of a valid
> email address may do the trick.
I would say that empirical evidence shows that the Wiki fulfills a need that
patches on a mailing list do not. If the mailing list were sufficient, then
the Wiki would be empty.
The simplest answer is that the Wiki is *much* easier to use and respond to.
Consider these two operations:
A. the Wiki approach
1. view a web page
2. oops. something is wrong.
3. edit the page.
4. Goodness(tm)
B. the mailing list approach
1. view a web page
2. oops. something is wrong.
3. view source, develop a patch.
4. send patch to mailing list.
5. rejected. patch should be against source.
6. crawl thru CVS to find the source. oh! the *xml* source
7. redo the patch.
8. send patch to mailing list.
9. rejected. patch broke the transform process.
10. screw this...
:-)
Yes, I know that variations are possible on (B). But even the simplest case:
1. view a web page.
2. oops. something is wrong.
3. send email to mailing list.
4. committer updates his working copy or gets a new one.
5. change is made
6. changes are committed
7. web site is refreshed.
8. Goodness(tm)
Meanwhile, it would be typical for a good amount of time to pass. The
"feedback loop" as ben put it just isn't there like it is for a Wiki.
I'm not a "Wiki == Documentation" guy (I think there are many more uses),
but it has significant utility over mailing lists...
Cheers,
-g
--
Greg Stein, http://www.lyra.org/
