| 1 |
> |
| 2 |
> I'm pretty sure users would see the wiki as an extra source of |
| 3 |
> documentation, not a "conflicting with" official documentation. Wikis |
| 4 |
> are (in essence and in users mind at least) known to be a *users* |
| 5 |
> product. This implies it could be sometimes not perfect or partially |
| 6 |
> wrong/obsolete. |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
I agree, |
| 9 |
the goal of wiki is not the technical quality (even if the quality |
| 10 |
also is often very good), but the free expression of users. |
| 11 |
it's a service for the community, not a launch window of the distribution. |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
the only thing developers should do in the wiki is to have sometimes a |
| 14 |
look to some principal articles, but they have not to carry the |
| 15 |
responsiblity of them. History carries this resposibility for them. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
my few cent (and sorry for my english). |
Archives