Peter Flynn wrote:
> On Tue, 2005-04-05 at 13:49, David Sewell wrote:
>>A couple of weeks ago I posted a query about which Wiki software programs
>>people are using for project documentation.
> I'm in several projects which use wikis for project documentation and I
> (personally) find it confusing and misleading when compared with a
> carefully structured site. I know it is possible to do this, but it
> seems to take just as long with a wiki as with any other system. Wikis
> have a great role to play in contribution-oriented projects, but I do
> feel that the interface for locating and presenting project
> documentation needs to be much more carefully engineered.
As somebody who is running one as well as part of a community of
practice site <www.digitalmedievalist.org>, I think (probably like most
things) that they seem more exciting in theory than in practice. The
temptation is to think that they write themselves; our experience at any
rate has been that they seem to need a bit more editorial work than
that--at the least somebody to look for connections and categories and
write model entries. Or at least I hope that's what they need.
We are currently experimenting with using the Category function of
mediawiki to build electronic books--e.g. a primer, encoding guides, and
the like. But I've been struck both by how excited people get by the
idea, but how difficult a genre they seem to be to work with.
Daniel Paul O'Donnell, PhD
Associate Professor of English
University of Lethbridge
Lethbridge AB T1K 3M4
Tel. (403) 329-2377
Fax. (403) 382-7191
E-mail <[log in to unmask]>
Home Page <http://people.uleth.ca/~daniel.odonnell/>
The Digital Medievalist Project: <http://www.digitalmedievalist.org/>