On 2010-12-21 17:20, Pajarico wrote:
... I will try to outline them, correct me me if I'm wrong:
- 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 ** b) many articles are outdated. 3.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.
This is partly true, but at least for me the problem isn't so much that I prefer wikimedia over some other piece of software, but rather wether it is worth the effort to move to something else. I have no doubt that pretty much any system can fulfill our basic technical needs. Nor do I doubt that there might be systems out there that do a better job at it than mediawiki (note the subtle, but crucial, difference between mediawiki and wikimedia, the former being a software package, the latter being an organization).
... 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.
True, but I think most arguments on either side have been laid on the table at one time or another already. Personally I am interested in seeing what alternatives to the current system will be proposed (and how the migration to those systems is planned). I am also still interested in participating in a coordinate effort to clean up the /content/ on the wiki, if one is set up. (I'm not volunteering to lead such an effort.)