On 3/21/06, Jonathan Revusky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > Consider the C2 Wiki and Wikipedia as analogies. Yes, it's easy to > > delete obviously false information. It's just as easy to reintroduce > > it. Keeping the worst of the cruft out is pretty much a full-time job > > for volunteers who take on the task, and there's not even agreement > > between them which is the cruft. Subtle or infrequently viewed > > incorrect information can, and does, remain for long periods of time. > > Spectacular failures occur that make headlines in the mass news media. > > Just to be clear: are you speculating in the above, or are you speaking > from direct experience maintaining such resources?
This happens all the time. Wikipedia is not the trusted place. It is just a place where you can look for quick description or links, but Wikipedia is unofficial. Also, I think that repairing one wiki page is a lot simpler than rolling back a CVS or SVN update of multiple interdependent source files. Michael. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
