Travis H wrote:
> Would a wiki specifically for crypto distribute the burden enough to
> be useful? Or should we just stick to wikipedia? Is it doing a
> satisfactory job?
The English Wikipedia's crypto coverage is a mixed bag. Out of the 800+
articles, there's a handful of fairly-good entries (
On Mon, 12 Dec 2005, Paul Hoffman wrote:
Or should we just stick to wikipedia? Is it doing a satisfactory job?
Also check out the Cryptography Reader:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiReader/Cryptography
"Matt Crypto" set up an "article (to clean up) of the day" replete with a bar
Travis H. wrote:
>Would a wiki specifically for crypto distribute the burden enough to be useful?
>Or should we just stick to wikipedia? Is it doing a satisfactory job?
>
>
I'd read it. More resources == better. But keep the current Wikipedia
controversy in mind WRT the veracity of the contri
On Mon, 12 Dec 2005, Travis H. wrote:
> Seems like a lot of new folks (myself included) ask questions that
> have the following answer: Read the literature, no there's no one
> site, that would be too much effort, &c. Would a wiki specifically
> for crypto distribute the burden enough to be useful
At 9:57 AM -0600 12/12/05, Travis H. wrote:
Would a wiki specifically for crypto distribute the burden enough to
be useful?
Or should we just stick to wikipedia? Is it doing a satisfactory job?
I cannot answer the first question: I am leery of wikis that have
open posting rights, and I am le
Seems like a lot of new folks (myself included) ask questions that
have the following answer:
Read the literature, no there's no one site, that would be too much effort, &c.
Would a wiki specifically for crypto distribute the burden enough to be useful?
Or should we just stick to wikipedia? Is i