(urth) Wiki

[Daniel D Jones]

On Monday 03 July 2006 11:16, Adam Stephanides wrote:
> As somebody who at one time did a fair amount of posting to the list, I'm
> not thrilled with the idea of all my posts being thrust willy-nilly into
> the public domain. I'm even less thrilled with the idea that anybody would
> be able to edit my posts. I doubt I'm the only one who feels this way. Of
> course, if the plan is just to summarize the discussions on the list,
> that's different.

It's been pointed out that you would need permission to copy anyone's post.  
If you're not comfortable with your writing being posted under whatever 
license is in effect, then don't contribute to the wiki.  If someone else 
decides to copy your statements over, then point it out and it will be 
quickly removed.

> In general it's still not clear to me what the advantages are of a wiki
> over, say, an FAQ or FAQs combined with a message board. 

A FAQ is a list of Frequently Asked Questions.  A wiki is a particular type of 
web page that allows group editing from a browser.  In otherwords, a FAQ is a 
description of the type of content.  A wiki is a description of the method 
used to generate the content.  They're orthogonal to one another.  A FAQ can 
be a wiki, a wiki can be a FAQ, or not.  Essentially, you can think of what's 
being discussed as a group edited FAQ.

> In fact, I would 
> think a priori that a wiki would be a poor format for dealing with Wolfe,
> about whose work there is so little agreement. 

A wiki would be an excellent choice for precisely that reason.  A wiki allows 
anyone to add to the discussion.  A standard web page FAQ, edited by only one 
person, would present only one point of view.  A wiki can cover as many as 
necessary, in whatever detail you feel like covering.

> But I could well be wrong; 
> it might help if I could see an example of a wiki which successfully does
> what you're expecting from a Wolfe wiki.

I'll see what I can dig up.