in my view, the Coq FAQ should also be maintained as part of Coq (e.g., of the refman), since it's clear that the current FAQ in the wiki is wildly out of date in many places
Being in the refman is not a guarantee against bitrot.
It's probably better to keep the refman for things that are directly connected to the underlying software and its evolution.
nobody knows which version of Coq the current FAQ is even (supposed to be) talking about, and w.r.t. axioms, which version of Stdlib. So if the "Coq FAQ" has no maintainers and continues to live in the wiki, it should probably be renamed to something like "community FAQ"
Yes, moving the FAQ from the Coq website to the Coq wiki was done with the purpose of delegating its maintenance to the community. Feel free to rename it, although maybe not the pages, otherwise that will create some broken links that we should track.
I think the Wiki model if maintaining anything is becoming more and more obsolete every day, see for example: https://twitter.com/andrejbauer/status/1576660675002499072
Ok, I fixed the Wikipedia page on proof by contradiction. Please defend it when the Wikipedia administrators notice that I violated 27 policies and failed to quote random web pages, even though I literally won an award for writing about this stuff. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_by_contradiction https://twitter.com/johncarlosbaez/status/1576532533067423745- Andrej Bauer (@andrejbauer)
The fact that Wikipedia has been taken over by bureaucrats many years ago is not a general proof that wikis suck. If anything, it's a proof that anarchy tends to self-stabilize itself into an authoritarian organization.
Wikis are indeed difficult to maintain but I think that Wikipedia is a special case that is completely irrelevant here.
Last updated: Oct 04 2023 at 23:01 UTC