8 Dec
2004
8 Dec
'04
1:08 p.m.
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