Brian,
> I think there are issues for the staticness of the proposed Wiki plan. If
> anyone is able to edit or create any page, it seems to me like this would be
> a wholly dynamic process. If someone puts a summary of some topic up, the
> summary could be wholly edited and reworked to say something completely
> different than what was originally intended.
That was my initial reaction, too. The thought of a group working for
some period of time (days, weeks, months) coming to some clear agreement
or sysnopsis that would be very helpful to themselves and others; only
to have deleted intentionally or unintentionally would sure put a damper
on my participation. In fact in my brief search I found not one but two
small sites (not started by some prexisting organization) where this had
happened and that one instance for all intents stopped them in there
tracks. ie all kinds of activity and contributions before, little or
none after. That's why the erang (sp) site with various levels of
security appealed to me.
Of course if you read the dogma on most the "wiki" sites this is not THE
"wiki" WAY. And that any level of restriction kills the whole open
source concept. Now in a tightly focus community of say ,software
developers, where the exchanges have real, immediate, tangible benefits
to all this maybe true. In the great unwashed web on a topic as isoteric
as metaphysics in general, and Pirsig in particular I think this
approach would be misguided. Wide open or not-at-all is a perversion of
reality usually expressed by those who would or will contribute the
least amount of postive effort and are most likely to disrupt, deface,
or destroy the work of others and call it "dynamic", sometimes but not
often, before they slink off to their caves.
3WD
MOQ.org - http://www.moq.org
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:03:34 BST