On 2/2/2012 1:06 AM, David Kramer wrote:
I disagree with you. Requiring collaboration is not the only reason to prefer a wiki over other solutions.
I did not mean to imply that collaboration is the only reason to use a wiki, only that collaboration is a good one to do so. What I will state is that if collaboration isn't involved then a wiki may be a bad tool.
Wikis also give you hyperlinks, so content can be found from several very different paths. A file repository can't usually do that.
Create an index.html file. The file repository now has all the hyperlinks that you want.
Most wikis come with powerful plugins that add functionality or make editing/viewing easier
Yes, and each one is different from the others, and all of them are different or limited compared to defacto standard editing and publishing tools (Word, LaTeX). The barrier to recording immediately is low, as you say, but the barrier to doing large scale work (grant proposals, theses, DOE reports) is much higher.
Most wikis give you revision control for free. Of course Git has revision control too, but how do you get the documents to the teachers, who are not necessarily technical people? Ask them to install Git too?
Pretty much. SmartGit automates the process and provides a familiar UI. Add a three minute demo of the pull/edit/commit/push cycle and even non-technical users are comfortable with it. I've deployed this for two small collaborations already, and both groups have non-technical people editing documents.
-- Rich P. _______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.blu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
