David McNab wrote:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but that sounds like "we'd better not have a wiki, because I can't think of anyone who's got the time to ensure it's perfect".
Maybe it "sounds like" that to you. You might want to try taking meaning from what is actually written though. I wrote:
Who will organize, scrub and correct minor errors? Who will set policy (for example, decide what is an error and what isn't?
You also wrote:
Wikipedia is full of problems - systemic bias, errors, conflicting agendas etc, but it's a heck of a lot better than having no wikipedia at all.
Wikipedia is not "full" of problems. Pages with bias are marked as such. A vigorous community continuously corrects errors. If we thought we could produce something at the level of quality of Wikipedia and with a similar assurance that it would last I would help as much as possible. But avrwiki does not look like that to me.
I'm still concerned that helping with the "golden" documentation might be an even better idea, but I don't know how feasible that is. Or, would the maintainers of the "golden" documentation abandon that in favor of the Wiki?
Graham. _______________________________________________ AVR-GCC-list mailing list AVR-GCC-list@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/avr-gcc-list
