> The wiki has been sitting there for two weeks and hasn't had
> any problems.
Uh, you mean apart from the fact that it took very little time (days,
IIRC) before we had people writing attempts at user documentation,
somthing that we already have *two* different systems (interactive docs
+ new techdocs) for, and specifically said we absolutely did not want on
this wiki? IIRC, that got on there long before *any* content related to
what was actually supposed to be there..
> It's already getting more attention and updates than the
> techdocs wiki which still has articles up from 2001 that are
> no longer relevant and in some cases are actively misleading.
It's in the process of being cleaned up, mainly by Robert Treat. I'm
sure he'd appreciate help.
Why would *this* wiki be less suceptible to the same kind of issues than
the old one? That's more an argument that we *will* have this problem on
the wiki.
//Magnus