On 3/21/06, Jonathan Revusky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Michael Jouravlev wrote: > > On 3/21/06, Jonathan Revusky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > >>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > >> > >>>Consider the C2 Wiki and Wikipedia as analogies. Yes, it's easy to > >>>delete obviously false information. It's just as easy to reintroduce > >>>it. Keeping the worst of the cruft out is pretty much a full-time job > >>>for volunteers who take on the task, and there's not even agreement > >>>between them which is the cruft. Subtle or infrequently viewed > >>>incorrect information can, and does, remain for long periods of time. > >>>Spectacular failures occur that make headlines in the mass news media. > >> > >>Just to be clear: are you speculating in the above, or are you speaking > >>from direct experience maintaining such resources? > > > > > > This happens all the time. > > I'll ask you the same question I asked of George: Are you speaking from > personal experience maintaining wiki resources?
Yeah, usually political stuff. Old Pope - new Pope, for example. > Despite the extreme kinds of comparisons like that, there are attempts > here to portray what I am saying as unreasonable. But how unreasonable > is it? Basically I am saying that you can drastically reduce the > barriers to entry for new committers and the potential gains for the > project far outweigh the risks. Why giving a commit priviliges to someone if you don't like (or haven't even seen) stuff that he brings in? Not to question does he really bring something in . Most project originators are dictators. They want to share and they want to use external force to move forward, but they want the project to reflect their ideas. Michael. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
