Re: st: Statalist-Stata wiki relation?

[n j cox <n.j.cox@durham.ac.uk>]

The Statalist FAQ gets amended when its maintainer (that's me,
at present) decides that it needs to be amended. Naturally
I listen to suggestions. But quite often something
is set up that seems to demand mention -- for example, Yahoo's
hosting of a version of the archives, or someone's recent setting
up of a RSS feed -- but equally many of those innovations are
less successful and less durable than Statalist itself. Both
those examples came to naught, last I heard. If and when a Wiki is born 
and grows to the extent that it demands acknowledgement,
then we'll write something. But it seems to me fairly futile
to start discussing what should be said before anything at all
has happened. I think practice will evolve organically, and pay
little or no attention to prior suggestions of proper procedure.

I think Jens Lauritsen made a very good contribution to these
discussions. I'd underline and develop his point -- and declare an 
interest in all cases -- that the success and quality of the
StataCorp FAQs, the Stata Journal and Statalist itself depends
on the participation and critical scruntiny of large fractions
of the most competent Stata people. I want to wish any Wikis
well, but at the same time I sense that several key people
are pretty stretched and unlikely to get involved. More
positively, Wikis could be places for quite new talents
to become obvious, if only anonymously.

Nick
n.j.cox@durham.ac.uk

SamL

Will it be necessary to amend the FAQ advice on using statalist if a 
wiki is developed, advising users to check
the wiki before posting to the list?  Are statalist members willing to
address questions that are answered in the wiki?

*
*   For searches and help try:
*   http://www.stata.com/support/faqs/res/findit.html
*   http://www.stata.com/support/statalist/faq
*   http://www.ats.ucla.edu/stat/stata/