Stephen Frazier wrote:
Martha McConaghy wrote:
Whether or not you are willing to trust the information provided on
the wiki
is totally up to each individual. Just because some wiki's are full
of crap
isn't really a good reason not to try this one.
Extensive history suggests that Wikis serving a dedicated and participatory
audience improve dramatically over time. I've watched the music and the
quantum physics pages on Wikipedia go from humorous to marvellous over
the last few years.
A Wiki is not a free lunch. If the audience habituates to editing and
correcting
mistakes on the spot, and further, about 3% of this audience routinely
works on
general maintenance (e.g., keeping pages of their interest on their
watchlist so they
catch vandalism within a day and roll back the changes) a Wiki works well.
As a delivery system to a non-participatory passive audience a Wiki does
not work well.
Lets use the list for new
questions /problems and put the old ones on the Wiki. Use them bot for
what they were designed for.
Amen, Stephen
--
Jack J. Woehr # «'I know what "it" means well enough, when I find
http://www.well.com/~jax # a thing,' said the Duck: 'it's generally a frog or
http://www.softwoehr.com # a worm.'» - Lewis Carroll, _Alice in Wonderland_
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For LINUX-390 subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO LINUX-390 or visit
http://www.marist.edu/htbin/wlvindex?LINUX-390
