dormando wrote:
That's *kind* of what I thought. I'm unawrae of anyone having real
authoritative specifications on wikipedia?
Is there something to show otherwise?
Not that my opinion means that much, but Wikipedia, like the
encyclopedias they mirror in the treeware world (as opposed to webware I
guess), is, to me, a secondary source. I generally wouldn't assume it
to be authoritative for much of anything, but would probably expect it
to point to something authoritative.
I also agree we really don't need more sites. Having said that, I think
it'd be great to use the wiki as the authoritative doc rather than
something in the doc/ directory. This is already partially true of
documenting contributors and changelog which live in the source
anyway.... it's more in the pubic record on the web/github, right?
- Matt
On Wed, 16 Sep 2009, Adam Lee wrote:
Am I confused or is it actually being proposed that documentation
exist on Wikipedia?
I see no problem with the current wiki and there's no way that
Wikipedia would that...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_a_manual.2C_guidebook.2C_textbook.2C_or_scientific_journal
--
awl
