But not in a sense, where they replace the discussions-section or act as forum or chat, but in a way to encourage people who do not have the time, or not the will to actually rewrite the whole article. Or to address people who are not sure, if their solution and/or knowledge is sophisticated enough to replace the article itself. Or to add corrections, that people are not sure about yet. See this for an example.
Those comments should or course be content, not discussions, oppinions or commendation. The latter belong on the discussions page.
I do appreciate the work, of Zaerc, Sammy and Trout !
Zaerc for forwarding this knowledge to the world and adding contents. Sammy for taking the responsability for the wiki, a job nobody else wanted as it is always unthankful and Trout for his support to Sammy in (re-)organizing the wiki.
There cannot be a wiki without content, but all the content in the world is useless if it is not structured. Both are problems within the wiki, as I see it.
- (for now) any content (in the meaning of knowledge) is good content. Whatever changes are made, they should always have the goal to not reduce the content within the wiki. We may restructure it, split page, unite pages with redudant knowledge, but never diminish, what is in the wiki.
- Re-organization of the global structure is a number 1 priority. The current way to add cathegories, form new and better contentlists, cross-reference article is just as important as the content itself, but it should honor the first point.
- Reformatting the pages to use the full capacity of the wiki is also as important. It makes additions way easier. But my oppinion is, that the previous 2 points have a higher weight, when being in conflict.
I thank all three of you for your devotion and for everything you're doing, which is propably more, than I will ever contribute, but I wanted to give you my impression on the topic.