Dag Wieers wrote: >> Whats the aim of creating duplicate content and thereby creating more >> legacy ? > > The aim would be that more people could actually improve the content, > instead of having it sit there, look ugly and not helping with donations > at all. If there is such a mass of humanity looking to improve the content, why is that effort not directed at fixing the issues with the website ? > If you want me to say we should replace the Website by the Wiki, I will :) you can say that if you like, but its not going to happen. > Sorry, but every link from the wiki going to the website is but-ugly, > looks disconnected and unprofessional. so why band-aid rather than fix the problem ? > Right, and the website obviously is much better in providing content to > users (not). the website gets a magnitude of more traffic than the wiki, so I'd say yes its a better mechanism at the moment. > Sorry Karanbir, we could argue about the principles of having a website > and a wiki, but as long as the website is in the state it is now I would > *never* recommend anyone to go to the website. but you dont want to make any efforts to fix that situation ? > Right, we could discuss what news-item to put on the frontpage, but I > think it is important to also put highlights on the wiki simply because > nobody ever visits both. I'd like to see what analytics were used in reaching that decision. - KB
