<html> <body> Fred et al, Respecfully, I think you're going in the wrong direction.  First, I'd like to see a very clear statement of mission / purpose.  The pitfalls of what I see being proposed are, in fact, many, while, at the same time, the day to day functioning of the lists (CAUT and Pianotech) is being insidiously undermined. I don't mean that the particular discussion is at fault, though, David Love did say (on both lists) that he felt  "too much time has been spent on this thread".       For example, like a mutant virus, this discussion has jumped list to Pianotech. I'd be fascinated to discover the path. We don't need no stinking Pianopedia...we need "CSI  List"!  The mechanics are out of control.  We quote, we don't quote, we quote too much or not enough.  Are we pedia-fying both lists? What if a salient comment to a cross-posted subject appears on only one list?  For whose benefit are you preparing to dedicate the remainder of your years?  For free.  The public? new technicians? me? The issues are related, but separate: Protocols that would enhance the daily dialogue and minimize confusion (quoting; titles better reflecting content, etc.) Effective individual methods for handling list data. Enhance archiving process, going forward Explore enhanced / refined search capabilities / organizational structure of existing archives. Again, as at least Ed Sutton, and I have suggested, construct an, or a series of experimental models: a particular subject, thread, time period,  the mechanisms of joint editorial process and structure of data.   David Skolnik Hastings on Hudson, NY At 01:43 PM 7/18/2008, you wrote: <blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">On Jul 18, 2008, at 6:14 AM, David Skolnik wrote: <blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">Not sure it does to me.  As I tried to suggest before, (Thu, 17 Jul  2008 05:23:55 -0400 ) the various mechanical problems associated  with searching the list data is separate from editorially distilling  the various discussions, a la Wiki, etc.  Take one topic, subject,  thread, whatever, and try it.  You, we should probably first agree  on a format, so that information is easily exchanged and edited.  I  don't know what that would be.  If one of the complaints is the  fluff, or excess repetitive quoting, maybe you, we need to come up  with something like a style book that makes clear the protocols we  desire, and yet, stylistically, what might be most appropriate for  archiving, or wiki'ing, might not be best for the real time  conversation we value.</blockquote> <x-tab>        </x-tab>The editing question could be a troublesome one, and to some extent  one has to rely on the good judgment of the volunteers doing the work.  What should stay in, what gets trimmed, in following a thread? I think  the basic principle should be one of deciding what to include, and  that we should make only the most minor actual "edits" (maybe  correcting a misspelling here and there and the like). The words  should be those of the author, and the author should be the only one  to make substantive or stylistic changes. Meaning that this might  sometimes be somewhat rough reading, warts and all, but with an  attempt to leave out the extraneous. <x-tab>        </x-tab>I think we should try to stick to content that has technical and  theoretical relevance (in our judgment), and retain those  contributions to a thread which seem to matter to its development. And  perhaps we can have a way of linking directly to the archives, so that  one can read the whole, unedited thread if desired. We have models in  various PTJ "digests of threads" which may provide a good starting  point for how to go about it. <x-tab>        </x-tab>Our attitude would be one of selecting what to "keep" (obviously the  archives keep everything), not one of choosing what to expunge. One  person's junk is another's gem, so a later person can come along and  choose other things to include, which would occur in an additive, not  subtractive way. We can look on it as a series of mining operations,  where the best veins are tapped first, and if someone wants to come  along later and look for more, hey, more power to him. Not a project  of trying to be exhaustive, to categorize and codify everything of any  value in the archives. Regards, Fred Sturm University of New Mexico fssturm@unm.edu -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG. Version: 7.5.524 / Virus Database: 270.5.1/1559 - Release Date: 7/17/2008 6:08 PM </blockquote></body> </html>