Graham Chiu <anon_emouse@hotmail.com>

In article <38F14904.20C18046@palladion.com>, Tres Seaver <tseaver@palladion.com> writes

...

As a long-time Wiki fan (I turned DC on to Wiki back in February) I don't favor Wiki for this kind of information. Wiki discards history in order to favor the "evolving consensus" of its community, whereas issue tracking is more of a

Surely that's the user who is discarding history. You can just keep adding below the previous text ...

My point is that wiki works best as a "group mind" tool, rather than a "threaded discussion" tool. While it is possible to do "threaded discussion" on a wiki page, via convention, the resulting page has less WikiNature than one in which the participants go back and revise the page. See:: http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?ThreadMode http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?WikiNature http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?ThreadModeConsideredHarmful on the "mother-of-all-wikis" for more on this. To quote Ward Cunningham:: There are many places on the net better than here to hold a conversation. And there are many better ways to publish a web page too. Wiki is different. As the founder of wiki I thank those who struggle to make its difference an advantage. The discussions surrounding a particular bug in an issue tracking system *need* to be linear / historical, in order to allow for correlation with changes to the source. Squishdot, ZDiscussions, or Tracker all provide this functionality, and support it structurally, rather than via convention. Tres. -- ========================================================= Tres Seaver tseaver@digicool.com tseaver@palladion.com