David Artman <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Glad to hear from everyone; though sad to see it's mainly "nope, > don't care"--I didn't expect that! Okay, to chime in on some of the issues you raise about Wiki Planning, maybe I'm the one with a misconception here. To me, a wiki is more of a "stumble toward a goal" process than a strictly planned hierarchy - and its collaborative nature just reinforces that. A wiki *can't* be both open to collaboration and locked to a vetting process; it just doesn't work. Now, in terms of setting up a general structure, I certainly see the value in getting buy-in before setting that down, as it's a lot of work to restructure any mass of data - but that seems to have already been done. I would submit, though, that if the desired update method is to have everybody vote on all changes before a Select Few implement them...well, then a wiki isn't what you want for that. That's more of a managed database. And for the record, I don't check the wiki just to check it - I go to it when I need information. Isn't that what it's for? Sometimes I need a lot of data, sometimes a little, so my access rates shift accordingly...and that's how it should be. What's the big deal of knowing how often people visit or what they look at when they're there? -- Robert Hood - Hixson, TN SJG MIB #8595 - Looney Labs Rabbit - Atlas Games Mook Next con: Hallowcon, October 26-28 - http://www.hallowcon.com