On Wed, Dec 08, 2004 at 05:08:24PM +0000, Steve Harris wrote: > 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. Oh, that's exactly what I had in mind. People feeling committed to help will take the short hassle and register, I guess. But still everyone could submit, say, the new from-scratch app he/she wrote, then via Dave. > > 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 and BTW > > and I say wiki.votes++, (not trying to convince you...:) > > > > cheers, tobias. > > I don't need convincing. Sorry Mark. Forget to 1.) introduce myself (again) to this list -- Hi to all (again). 2.) replied the wrong email, I meant not "trying to convince Dave" so long. tobias. -- ThatThatThatThatThatCan'tYearstreamAllcommandSOFTWAREdirectoryREADMEvariouscodePlayerAudioBeautiful
