Magnus Hagander wrote:
> 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?
Well my idea if an average PostgreSQL user is not one who would be
turned off by the idea of a wiki in general. I also do not think that a
wiki is unprofessional by definition.
> 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)
Oh maybe I missed something here, but I did not realize that we are
discussing replacing the main site with a wiki. I just think that the
wiki is perfect when we want to involve a broad audience in the creation
of the text (which may very well then we moved to techdoc or the
documentation later on) or when its just for a quick one shot with a
life time if a few weeks (months tops).
regards,
Lukas
