1. being wrong is ok. when you find information that doesn't work for you, but don't have something better to replace it with, you can place a note near it. something like (note: this doesn't work in montana during a full moon). hopefully others will see it and either add to it or correct it. but if they don't know to look, they are less likely to.
2. I think if you stipulate that what you're doing is for a very specific application, perhaps even in the page title itself, it will be more likely to help others with similar goals, and less likely to be clobbered by the mainstream users. in the worst case, your page gets deleted and you will have at least tried. then, if this becomes the recurring pattern in practice, the next logical step may be to set up your own wiki. -wes On Fri, Jan 6, 2017 at 6:22 AM, Richard Owlett <[email protected]> wrote: > I have asked many questions (some odd;) and have received much > useful feedback. > Some have suggested creating or adding to wiki pages. > For two reasons I hesitate to create/edit a page on an > established wiki (e.g. wiki.debian.org): > > 1. The strong possibility I could have my facts wrong. There have > been cases where I could demonstrate current wiki content was > wrong and have been chided for not changing it myself - it being > a wiki after all. I did not know the correct information &/or > could not see replacing known bad with something with other > unknown errors. > > 2. As to creating new content, I have atypical perspectives. > During the development of content I would need feed back but a > traditional established wiki is open for modification by the > general public. Almost by definition they would edit to conform > to that divergent view. > > I do not have the resources nor expertise to create or administer > such a site. > Characteristics of such a site (roughly in order of importance): > 1. ONLY the author of a page has write access to the page content. > 2. there be some means for publicly readable comments on the > content. > 3. the content should probably be open indexing by search engines. > 4. if possible it should be flagged to not be archived by sites > such as > http://archive.org as one of the goals is to limit the > perpetuation of > erroneous "facts". > > Comments/suggestions? > TIA > > > _______________________________________________ > PLUG mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.pdxlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug > _______________________________________________ PLUG mailing list [email protected] http://lists.pdxlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug
