I agree with Tim.  

Keep in mind I only have time to suggest work not do it.  For those that get angry about that feel free to stop reading.

It would be great to start a new wiki, or make a new front page with links that are more current, or even mark old stuff as old.  Instead the more practical route is probably pruning and deleting out or updating content that provides little or no current value or stop pointing to it directly from squeak.org.  If we want to still point people to it at least the first page needs updating.  Any link off the front page should be current, updated or deleted.

All the best,

Ron Teitelbaum 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: squeak-dev-bounces at lists.squeakfoundation.org [mailto:squeak-dev-
> bounces at lists.squeakfoundation.org] On Behalf Of Chris Muller
> Sent: Monday, April 15, 2013 6:41 PM
> To: The general-purpose Squeak developers list
> Subject: Re: [squeak-dev] The Future of Squeak
> 
> So, after years of nothing, Tim shows up with a complaint and a buzz-saw?   ;-)
> 
> The Wiki by its nature has many authors which gives it its "messy"
> organic quality rather than the clear presentation of a single individual.  Unless
> we want to establish an overseer it will always be exactly what many community
> individuals make of it.
> 
> The true cyberman approach would be simply to run a job that enumerates every
> page of the swiki and deletes any that are, say, older than one year.
> 
> But I think there are plenty of opportunities to make it more organized and
> presentable without needing to be overly aggressive via the cyberman approach.
> For example, MathMorphs are probably works in some old image and possibly
> able to be brought forward so I'd hate to see perfectly good documentation
> completely annihilated simply because someone considered it "old and out of
> date".
> 
> 
> On Mon, Apr 15, 2013 at 3:49 PM, tim Rowledge <tim at rowledge.org> wrote:
> > I guess my major point really is that the wiki pages are horribly out of date
> which at the least means probably wrong and misleading to any newcomers
> trying to find out about Squeak. I'm inclined to think that anything so out of date
> should probably be removed from view and at most preserved in some
> electronic aspic.
> >
> > Many other pages on the squeak.org site are very out of date too and we
> collectively ought to try to do something about that. Again, I'd tend to go for
> the Cyberman approach (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dGa37WgN3yY)
> The smart thing is probably to trim back to what we can actively support and
> then try to build more afreash.
> >
> >
> > tim
> > --
> > tim Rowledge; tim at rowledge.org; http://www.rowledge.org/tim I am still
> > waiting for the advent of the computer science groupie.
> >
> >
> >
>