(urth) Wiki

[Adam Stephanides]

Daniel D Jones wrote:

>On Monday 03 July 2006 11:16, Adam Stephanides wrote:
>> 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. 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. 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.
>
>It's vastly different subject matter but a chain of events just led me to the 
>Wikipedia article for a Rock band called Tool.  Take a look at that article, 
>particularly section 3, called "Arguments about genre and categorization."  I 
>don't see why articles on various aspects of Wolfe's work couldn't be 
>similarly laid out.
>
>http://tinyurl.com/kdqjr

I wasn't doubting that articles could be written on controversial issues. Rather,  I was concerned that such articles might either devolve into "editing wars" or become long and shapeless as everyone tries to add their own viewpoint. And while the article you cite seems to have avoided these problems, I think the danger would be greater for an article about, say, the "Green is Urth" theory (to mention an debate in which I was personally involved).

--Adam