On 1/24/06, Alexis Gallagher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I happen to agree with Edi that a raw wiki can be unhelpful (see my > complaints about cliki above). But I think I disagree with in thinking > the remedy is an infrastructure that requires "designated contributors" > (which ends up reducing casual contributions). Instead I'd imagine the > best middle ground is setup that allows for very easy contributions > (either a posted email address, or through a wiki), but also includes a > stable core of custodians who care about its quality and keep it > accurate and tidy. I'd imagine most of the work would be deleting > obsolete material, maintaining formatting standards, keeping everything > organized, and cross-referenced. Perhaps this is merely the distinction > between editorial effort and editorial control. A practical approach to > this question: how did the Perl community do it? > I have no idea about perl, but one solution would be to make a wiki so that new pages and edits go into a queue until an editor approves it. Or allow email submissions to the existing system. Those two are largely similar, especially w.r.t. how much work the maintainers have to put in, although a wiki may make cross-referencing a bit easier. Adding this to something like cl-wiki would be pretty straightforward, I think.
Its just an idea, not necessarily a good one. > Is this a worthwhile gardening project, or just a diversion of > overdiluted resources? It seems like the CL community has a million > small unused documentation projects, so maybe one more is not a good > thing. > What do others think? > > alexis > _______________________________________________ > Gardeners mailing list > [email protected] > http://www.lispniks.com/mailman/listinfo/gardeners > _______________________________________________ Gardeners mailing list [email protected] http://www.lispniks.com/mailman/listinfo/gardeners
