On May 21, 2010, at 12:14 AM, David Greaves wrote: > Dave Neary wrote: >> >> Warren Baird wrote: >>> On Thu, May 20, 2010 at 3:28 PM, David Greaves <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> OTOH a wiki has a 'talk' page; the ability to trivially host 'draft' >>>> versions of >>>> pages nearby; email notification of changes; and I've proposed a reasonable >>>> process that, together with the great audit trail that a wiki offers should >>>> trivially identify and allow reversion of any unwanted edits. >>> I think it makes perfect sense to *develop* policy on the wiki, for >>> all of the reasons you mention... I'm less convinced it makes sense >>> to use it to host published, fairly static policy docs that you >>> definitely *do* not want people changing, accidentally or otherwise... >> >> Your joint proposal to use the wiki for drafting & revisions, and the >> CMS for agreed final policy is very wise. > > OK, I'm happy with "the wiki is authoritative until an alternative (drupal) > solution is in place"
This is contrary to current best practices. Wikis should be authoritative, no CMS required. Anyone who defaces the wiki ruins their public reputation which seems both logical and effective. Adding a layer of bureaucracy to the wiki seems unnecessary. Jeremiah _______________________________________________ MeeGo-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.meego.com/listinfo/meego-dev
