Gentlemen, may we rewind for a bit here and oversee what the original problem is?
Let's define what are the problems first and look for the solutions from there. This debate has led to a argument about wikimedia which is totally sterile and missing the underlaying problems altogether.
I will try to outline them, correct me me if I'm wrong: 1. The website is not good (missing sections, not attractive, not descriptive enough for newbies...). 2. The wiki (read this as "the collaborative are with easy access and editing capabilities") is not good because it has: ** a) lot's of stuff that should be in the website. ** b) many articles are outdated. 3. Some people don't like wikimedia while others do. ** proposed research: who like/dislike wikimedia and why? It seems that people who disliked wikimedia were talking about documentation (of features). Maybe we should leave wikimedia for things that require, fast, robust, collaborative editing (release notes, proposals, blueprints...) and use another system for others (documentation). This second system might lean more on robust
The debate shouldn't be about personal choices but rather which tools are better for each problem, which in turn requires us to have a very specific understanding on what the problems really are.