[Wolves] Revitalising the LUG

[Andy Wootton]

Steve Parkes wrote:

> Alan Pope wrote:
>
>> On 17/08/05, Jono Bacon <jonobacon at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I am convinced we can get more out of our site, but I am unsure how we
>>> can do it and ensure it gets updated.   
>>
>> *cough* wiki *cough*?
>
> whatever the outcome of the new site this is a perfect opportunity to 
> bring the existing wiki closer to the combined consiousness of the 
> lug.  Whatever is decided I vote that the existing wiki admined and 
> hosted by Rob should be brought onto a par with the main site and 
> mailing list.  Let's not forget it existed for about a year without 
> even a link from the main page (hey let's get a dynamic site so we can 
> all add links, it's like a roundabout ;-) ) and has survived some 
> pretty nasty attacks from spammers and is an excellent way to host 
> tutorials, notes and user editable content while keeping the site 
> itself professional and clean.
>
> sparkes 

At work, every couple of years someone on high buys a new piece of 
software. It has been Dec Pathworks, Lotus Notes, Microsoft Exchange, a 
document repository, a portal and another portal.It hasn't ever really 
worked because no-one has clearly defined what they are for, 
differentiated between the types of information that belong in each or 
created a clear and consistent structure. Very few people contribute 
information and those that do feel that their efforts are undermined by 
a each change of tools. The effort required to move information from one 
tool to another is always underestimated so it never happens.

I think we can learn from that experience. Is there anythin wrong with 
our software tool? I think that for the LUG's requirements, a WIKI can 
do the job. It might be a good time to consider what we want from it and 
clearly define and explain a proposed structure then it just needs 
'elbow grease' to create content.

Woo