> Dmitry - Helen has made the point in the past about wiki's being a

mess,

> and to be honest I do agree.

Examples? Arguments? I gave mine, so please give yours, otherwise this
is just a voting system.

I think wikis can do a great job given proper credit and most
importantly **a purpose**. Wikipedia, c2.com, etc. works that way and
they manage a great deal more of info than firebird has/needs.
wiki.firebirdsql.org was not given any purpose, was a leftover so
obviously nobody cared. When used as central point, a wiki can show
its value.

The PHP documentation has a mile of

> disorganised attachments to pages which do need proper management.

BUT

> the current system of creating 'adhoc' items of documentation is

just to

> inhibiting, so a wiki layer that allows people to add FAQ's or small
> methods should compliment things.

FAQ's or small methods? Give credit to your users. They won't care if
left aside. Be radical if you want results. Get out of the "authority
over consensus" mindset.

USEFUL stuff can be merged back into

> the 'pdf' tree, but in reality there is little difference between

the

> htlm view and a well structured wiki.

The big difference is that a wiki is heavily cross-linked, just like
is the case with the relational model, it abhors hierarchies.

IMO, there's little value in generating pdfs, and you save the forest
:)

> I use html exclusively in my own
> stuff rather than a 'wiki' format and it works fine for me.

How could this work in a collaborative environment?