Pondering: 1. whether we need a wiki at all, 2. whether the content we have has any significant value, 3. the error rate in the content we have. Taking them in reverse order ... -- 3. the error rate in the content we have This is not a criticism of contributors, or the lack of time they may have had, but one of the problems of Wikis is that content ages, becomes prone to error, unless maintained. When I detect bad content, I fix it or remove it. I haven't been watching the Wiki, because it turns out my RSS feed was relying on RecentChanges and RecentChanges was broken. My mistake for not checking. I've looked through every page linked from the main page, and the error rate in the content is surprisingly low. Some important pages have been maintained well, and that is good. 2. whether the content we have has any significant value We have strategic plans, source code, definitions, and history. Certainly the strategic plans and the collaboration there should be kept. The source code instructions are less important, because we do a reasonable job of following the standard practices used by other projects. History, shrug, not sure how valuable that is. Some duplication is there between source code and Wiki content, but it isn't a major thing. 1. whether we need a wiki at all Yes, I think we do. It is a useful way to collaborate, especially at the variable rate that we are exhibiting. So to fix the current situation takes either: (a) accepting some work or access control on the current wiki, e.g. an HTTP authentication prompt to keep out the bots, or; (b) finding another wiki host, and I know several of you have looked into that already. Discuss. -- James Cameron mailto:quozl at us.netrek.org http://quozl.netrek.org/