Not heretical questions at all!
I think there are two issues here, to which I would respond differently.
(1) The depth of data structure possible in a Wiki: it is true that I would not
choose a simple, unadapted Wiki as the authoring environment for a project
(such as an epigraphic publication) requiring deep encoding, as those for which
we use XML or SQL. I _might_ use something that mirrors its versioning powers
with CVS, I suppose. But for documents such as guides to practice, FAQs,
suggested fonts or tools, and the like, such deep encoding is not so necessary:
even if I were to mark such a document in XML, it would not be much deeper than
HTML anyway. We have to keep in mind what we are using the Wikis for.
(2) The question of quality control: the simple answer to this is that the DC
Wiki is not currently open to editing by just anyone whom whim should draw to
it. (Nor do I think it should be, and not only to stop spammers posting adverts
for diet pills.) In the first instance, editors have to be approved by the
administrators of the Wiki before they can make changes. It should also be
possible, as Prof Mueller suggests) to have a system of indicators of editorial
status--as in the Suda On-Line, for example.
In any case, I would argue that texts in the Wiki are not considered finished,
reliable, peer-reviewed output. We hope and intend that texts will come out of
the Wiki, in a stable form, and be published on the Stoa as peer-reviewed
Guides to Practice. They will be reliable, in the academic sense you demand;
the FAQ isn't, entirely. (Although more so than a completely open Wiki would
be, I contend.)
Best,
--
=======================================
Gabriel BODARD
Inscriptions of Aphrodisias
Centre for Computing in the Humanities
King's College London
Kay House
7, Arundel Street
London WC2R 3DX
Email: [log in to unmask]
Tel: +44 (0)20 78 48 13 88
Fax: +44 (0)20 78 48 29 80
=======================================
|