Brian, > I think there are issues for the staticness of the proposed Wiki plan. If > anyone is able to edit or create any page, it seems to me like this would be > a wholly dynamic process. If someone puts a summary of some topic up, the > summary could be wholly edited and reworked to say something completely > different than what was originally intended.
That was my initial reaction, too. The thought of a group working for some period of time (days, weeks, months) coming to some clear agreement or sysnopsis that would be very helpful to themselves and others; only to have deleted intentionally or unintentionally would sure put a damper on my participation. In fact in my brief search I found not one but two small sites (not started by some prexisting organization) where this had happened and that one instance for all intents stopped them in there tracks. ie all kinds of activity and contributions before, little or none after. That's why the erang (sp) site with various levels of security appealed to me. Of course if you read the dogma on most the "wiki" sites this is not THE "wiki" WAY. And that any level of restriction kills the whole open source concept. Now in a tightly focus community of say ,software developers, where the exchanges have real, immediate, tangible benefits to all this maybe true. In the great unwashed web on a topic as isoteric as metaphysics in general, and Pirsig in particular I think this approach would be misguided. Wide open or not-at-all is a perversion of reality usually expressed by those who would or will contribute the least amount of postive effort and are most likely to disrupt, deface, or destroy the work of others and call it "dynamic", sometimes but not often, before they slink off to their caves. 3WD MOQ.org - http://www.moq.org
