1) Wiki's have the disadvantage that they require discipline and time. The content of a Wiki page needs to exceed the reliability of an opinion or a preference -- "religious" or otherwise.
2) Their advantage is that they offer concentrated information. They can act as a focal point for links to all the sites mentioned by the participants of this group. <story> The paradigm used today by Google et al is at least as old as the IBM-NYTimes morgue project. Information of varying kinds is linked by a search engine. It is effective. It can be of limited efficiency. There once was a humorous named H Allen Smith. His books started as shoe boxes into which he placed news clippings and pieces of paper with seemingly random notes. Once a year, he read the contents looking for a theme. When he found one, he organized the material into a book, such as "Low man on a totem pole" and "The Rebel yell". That is the wiki paradigm, however Wiki contributors do it in real time. It differs from the search-engine-universal-data paradigm because the "publishing eent" has occured. Value has been added by editing data. Information stored in all the gin joints ... oops ... all the memories of all the contributors is contcentrated and (hopefully) organized. It is crosslinked but still searchable. Because the search universe is limited to more pertinent material, the search is more efficient if less comprehensive. Even if only the contributions from the IBMers on this list were done in this way, it would be invaluable -- perhaps more valuable than the voluminous IBM information sites because of increased level of organization. </story> Wikis have enjoyed explosive popularity because they offer a medium (pun intended) of communication that is egalitarian and effective. the ranting silverback pup IBM Mainframe Discussion List <[email protected]> wrote on 11/16/2006 12:26:26 PM: > > If there was a wiki, we'd end up with everything written by the > > most persistant posters. Not necessarily the most knowlegable. > > And the history would likely get rather ugly. > Haven't the discussion gone away from the topic ? > FAQ is not official documentation and need not to be 100,00% accurate. > It can contains simplification, etc. Otherwise there will be very few > entries - the rest will be inaccurate, incomplete or nobody will do it. > The tool and organization are not so relevant, usually FAQ is simple web > page maintained by single person or few persons. Such person puts new > [EMAIL PROTECTED]'s. However it can be wiki-like mechanism as well. > IMHO the most important issue is nobody will put new questions and > answers. It will be empty. ...and then it will be accurate <vbg> > The same with engine: wiki has disadvantages, simple webpage has > disadvantages, but it's still better than NOTHING. This is what we have now. > Radoslaw Skorupka ----------------------------------------- The information contained in this communication (including any attachments hereto) is confidential and is intended solely for the personal and confidential use of the individual or entity to whom it is addressed. The information may also constitute a legally privileged confidential communication. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient or an agent responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you have received this communication in error and that any review, dissemination, copying, or unauthorized use of this information, or the taking of any action in reliance on the contents of this information is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by e-mail, and delete the original message. Thank you ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
