On Wednesday, October 05, "Jason Rumney" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >David Vanderschel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> I don't remember much discussion that opposed the idea >> of folding help for emacs on Windows into the wiki. >RMS once opposed the idea, but I do not remember if it was for the >Emacs-W32 FAQ, or the main Emacs FAQ. His opinion was that the FAQ is >expected by users to be accurate, so the FSF should have some degree >of control over its content. However if his comments were about the >main Emacs FAQ, then he might not consider it necessary to place the >same restrictions on the Emacs-W32 FAQ Logically, I think RMS's argument would apply just as well to Windows-specific issues. I do understand the argument. However, what concerns me is that, to be useful, the Official Emacs-on-Windows FAQ needs to be maintained. The irony is that, with a dual approach, I expect the information in the wiki will tend to be more up to date and more useful on account of it. There is a danger that some (but not enough) effort will be expended to maintain the official FAQ, when few people are using it (and would be ill-advised to do so). If possible, I would like to find a way to avoid the apparently redundant (and possibly wasted) effort. A thought: Might it not be possible to blend FSF "officialness" into the wiki? Eg., could the wiki not freeze FSF-approved pages? Ie., when you go to a page you might find a notation like "content on this page verified by FSF" OR "There is an earlier version of this page which has been checked by the FSF: [link] This version contains additional new material regarding [whatever]." It strikes me that many of the folks working on the wiki are already the same folks who can speak for the "officialness" of some information. Regards, David V.
