stuff only / Re: [vox] wiki recommendations

[Eric D. Pierce]

On 27 Jun 2003 at 9:28, Peter Jay Salzman wrote:

Date sent:      	Fri, 27 Jun 2003 09:28:26 -0700
To:             	epierce@surewest.net
Subject:        	Re: stuff only / Re: [vox] wiki recommendations
Send reply to:  	p@dirac.org
From:           	Peter Jay Salzman <p@dirac.org>

> On Fri 27 Jun 03,  9:04 AM, Eric D. Pierce <epierce@surewest.net> said:
> > 
> > > On Thu 26 Jun 03,  6:46 PM, epierce@surewest.net <epierce@surewest.net> said:
> > > > 
> > > > ??? http://tavi.sourceforge.net/WikiEngines
> > > > 
> > > > Peter Jay Salzman said:
> > > > > i'm thinking of using a wiki to organize certain types of information
> > >  
> > > so based on your experience, what would your recommendation be?
> > > 
> > > pete
> > 
> > You (also) asked:
> > 
> > "1. is a wiki suitable for this use (i'm not too hip on wikis ATM)."
> > 
> > I'm not a wiki user (thus no recommendation), but from what 
> > I've heard, it is worth at least scanning through the
> > conceptual part of the documentation to get a sense of the
> > possibilities.

...

> this really hits home on a discussion that we've been having about just
> posting an URL with no other content in a message body or as a reply.
> simply posting an URL with no context is something that has irked me for
> a long time.  it's a lack of communication, which is essential for a
> faceless mode of interaction like email.

That is a valid concern.

On the other hand, is would presumably be appropriate to 
make allowances for people that have to rapidly scan their
email at certain times of the day and fire off a quickie 
when they are in a hurry.


> i've been meaning to find time to craft the proper words for new list
> rules on "meaningful subjects" and "provide context with each url you
> post".

keep it basic, I think you just said it. :)

> since you just posted an url, i had no idea what you were trying to say.

The critical element was the inclusion of the three following
characters prior to the URL:
 
  "???"



In addition, I was assuming that a pointer to documentation
that contains an obvious conceptual explanation of the 
basic utility of the technology was appropriately 
self-referential in terms of your request:

"1. is a wiki suitable for this use (i'm not too hip on wikis ATM)."


In other words, I (again) assumed that your stated aversion 
to reading documentation was on the basis of avoiding having
to dredge through a lot of potentially irrelevant technical 
details prior to determing the the concept utility of wikis.

> i thought you were trying to make a recommendation.  

sorry for the confusion.


>it wasn't apparent
> to me that the url you sent was meant to explain wikis more fully than
> common knowledge.

ah. your original post didn't indicate anything about common
knowledge. I personally never heard of wikis until a year or
so ago when I stumbled across a reference to wikis while
research "virtual communities".

> anyway, this type of miscommunication is the perfect example of why just
> posting an URL is not a good thing to do in most cases.
> 
> pete

ok.

regards,
ep