Revdocs on a wiki

[David Bovill]

On 28 Oct 2005, at 02:53, Dan Shafer wrote:

> Several years ago, I headed up a project which involved an  
> extensive documentation effort and this same issue was raised. I  
> like the way we solved it. Furthermore, I happen to have access to  
> the tool and a server where it could be deployed and would make  
> both freely available if: (a) at least one or two others would be  
> willing to share site management and editing chores; and (b) the  
> community thinks it's a good idea. The approach we used was akin to  
> a discussion board. Each section of the docs was a topic on the  
> board. Everyone who was a member (and that term could be loosely  
> defined, of course) could add their comments to a section of the  
> docs. There was also a general topic area where people could post  
> questions and suggestions about the docs in their totality.  
> Periodically, an editor assigned to a given section would go  
> through the comments, incorporate the suggestions that made sense,  
> edit the topic, create a new topic on that section, hibernate the  
> old, and move comments that remained relevant to the new topic area.
>
> At the same time there was a way for any interested party to: (a)  
> see the docs without the comments; (b) navigate using only the  
> "official" docs; and (c) view and print (and save as PDF) all or  
> some of the currently official documentation. This model is called  
> "managed open collaboration" and I think it presents the best of  
> all possible worlds in terms of encouraging and incorporating  
> useful input without disrupting the accuracy or utility of the  
> original and modified documentation.

Yes - wish i could write like that :)