Robert Bradshaw wrote:
>
> I still think the con is valid--for instance I think wikipedia is
> great but certainly have a lower expectation of trust when I read
> stuff there. I think it would take a while to notice fishy entries in
> a contributors wiki too.
>
That is a good point. Some
2007/9/24, Robert Bradshaw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> I like the idea of giving people edit access to a wiki when they
> become contributors, and think this should be periodically (and
> perhaps manually) copied over to a static page periodically.
+1
>
> - Robert
>
>
>
>
> >
>
--~--~-~--~-
On Mon, 24 Sep 2007, Robert Bradshaw wrote:
>
> I like the idea of giving people edit access to a wiki when they
> become contributors, and think this should be periodically (and
> perhaps manually) copied over to a static page periodically.
>
> - Robert
>
+1
--~--~-~--~~-
On Sep 21, 2007, at 7:31 PM, Hamptonio wrote:
> What about an intermediate solution: once someone is a contributor,
> you could give them edit access to a wiki page listing contributors,
> and then they could keep their entry current.
>
> On Sep 21, 5:53 pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>> Sure. I
What about an intermediate solution: once someone is a contributor,
you could give them edit access to a wiki page listing contributors,
and then they could keep their entry current.
On Sep 21, 5:53 pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > Sure. I should probably move that page to the wiki so people
> >
> Sure. I should probably move that page to the wiki so people
> can update it themselves.
>
> What do people think about moving the contributors page to
> a wiki?
> Pro: It's easier to update and more complete
> Con: It doesn't hold as much weight to be listed, since just anybody
> can
William Stein wrote:
>> One thing: I saw in the contributors list,
>> Me: a few random things...
>>
[...]
>
> Sure. I should probably move that page to the wiki so people
> can update it themselves.
>
>What do people think about moving the contributors page to
>a wiki?
>Pro: It's e
