Re: we now have "lilypond" organization on GitHub

[Joseph Rushton Wakeling]

On 24/09/13 18:05, James wrote:
> The fact our documentation is (even if I do say so myself) very comprehensive,
> is precisely because patches get reviewed and discussed before they are
> incorporated (this wouldn't happen with a wiki). Things like users reporting
> typos and simple changes often get fixed by other developers very quickly, if
> not tracker items get put up and it isn't long before they get fixed.

Yes, a "raw" wiki like Wikipedia can be vulnerable to rubbish, but you don't 
have to operate like that.  There's a nice balance in the solution found by 
Citizendium, where you have a "public" article which is stable and updated 
rarely, and a "draft" article which anyone can edit, but which is carefully 
reviewed and revised before its updates are copied over to the public page.

That has a few advantages.  If someone posts something that is in poor English, 
it doesn't have to be cut straight away (it hasn't changed the public page), and 
anyone watching that page can step in and correct it.  Ditto if what has been 
written is unclear -- someone can make some revisions, there can be some 
back-and-forth, etc.  And finally, review of changes isn't just limited to one 
patch, it's on a Talk page which everyone can read and follow, so the lessons 
learned there can be more broadly spread.

Basically it means there can be more creativity and spontaneity in the drafting 
process, users' editing procedures are much more nice and simple, and you can 
still be rigorous in final review.

But I understand that there can be other reasons why wikis etc. are not a 
desirable solution.  Just out of curiosity -- was a wiki ever actually seriously 
attempted, or was it rejected because of the reasons you mention?