> > > > As it happens I agree with Ian on this. Duplication of information
> > > > is not bad at all. Ian focused on the advantages of preservation
> > > > when duplicate repositories were in place. Obviously the example
he
> > > > gave fits that cir***stance. I'm not sure its equally valid for
the
> > > > web, since backup's, at least for large sites, are usually broadly
> > > > distributed geographically, and a disaster is unlikely to destroy
> > > > all the backups. Nonetheless, I can point to archives that have
had
> > > > only a single backup, and that backup was lost. Happened in a
> > > > specific intance with a major genealogy provider.
> > >
> > > What really concerns me is what would be the consequence of there
> > > being a single archive and the central provider decided to move out
> > > of the market. In the long term survival of records depends not
> > > just on multiple copies under the same management but copies under
> > > different management.
> >
> > As someone who has had to manually recover many years worth of
> > emails from a heavily trafficked mail list, because RootsWeb decided
> > the list wasn't supposed to have archives if it was a private list,
> > I can easily see that point. Anything can be turned into free
> > electrons, but if there are multiple systems containing the same
> > material, there's an improved chance at preserving the data in an
> > accessible format.
> >
> > So, the answer is: there are a good many reasons why duplication on
> > the web is a good thing. Those who don't like or appreciate that
> > duplication are primarily having a problem with the way the web
> > works. If it's a problem (I think it isn't) it's not one that is
> > obviously remediable.
> >
> > "Q" <quolla6@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
> Howevre, copies should NOT surplant the original when the original
> is still available. That's the problem: wikis often do.
>
> D. Stussy <spam@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
I'm not sure that duplication occurs on wikis to any significant
extent.I asked you to point to specific examples concerning a wiki
article taking a higher precedance in a search,
and you did not.
Could you provide a specific example of where a wiki has duplicated
an existing article?
In any case, your problem has little if anything to do with wiki's.
Duplication is endemic in genealogy on the web.
Your problem would seem to be that you do not like the way the web
works.
Q
Q <quolla6@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
|
