Lukas Kahwe Smith wrote:
> Dave Page wrote:
>
>> Using a wiki for a public website looks completely unprofessional and
>> gives the impression of a small organisation without the resources to
>> do things properly.
>
> Honestly I dont think that our target audience cares much. What I do
Apparently we define our target audience a lot differently ;-) What
group does not notice an unprofessional web presence these days?
> feel is important is that we have some kind of editorial process to
> ensure that there is no content on there, that the community at large
> does not endorse or that is not labeled properly. This requires a group
> of people subscribing to the changelog RSS feed and keeping an eye on
> what goes in and warning this list if there is questionable content. It
> also requires regular spring cleaning (I would say once per quarter).
That method leaves it very possible for incorrect data to be up on the
main site for three months, which is IMHO unacceptable. I can accept
that for a community collaboration site (like the current wiki), but not
for the main web presence. "Moderation" has to happen before the fact
there. (that's a principle completely unrelated to if a wiki is used or
not - I assume there are wikis that can deal with that workflow as well)
/Magnus
