On Wed, Dec 08, 2004 at 08:48:28AM -0800, Mark Knecht wrote: > I don't need convincing. I'm not against a wiki at all. I was, in > fact, quite impressed at the idea. However, what does it mean to be > managed? If that means Dave has to look at everything that his new > helpers do then it likely isn't going to save him much time. Edits by anonymous users needs to be acked by someone, registered users edits go up immediatly IIUC. I think this is roughly how wikipedia works. > I hadn't used a wiki until my first attempt last evening. The one I > used didn't enforce any specific page formats or content. One thing I > really appreciate about Dave's site is it's consistency, even if it is > a bit old school to look at. If there's a wiki way to keep things > consistent, improve the way it looks, and give helpers access to do > the dirty work for him, then I'm very much in favor of using a wiki to > do this. Yes, you can do this, wiki have text codes to do things like bullets, and you can have macros or something similar (e. for including photos in wikipedia). - Steve
