Reviving sub-workgroup (networking)

[Howard C. Berkowitz]

I'm not sure that this is the subgroup level, since, obviously, end computers are merely test loads for the network.  :-)  I will also send this to the mailing list, as I'm not sure how active the forum may be.

Frankly, I gave up at Wikipedia due to the constant arguments about what some basic textbook said, versus what actually is defined in IETF, ISO, etc. documents, as well as how real implementations and major networks behave. If I'm not being too pedantic -- and I'm not a traditional academic -- I am concerned that we have some articles that may be somewhat imprecise, or overemphasize topics (e.g., OSI Reference Model) that simply are not important in the real world but are widely taught.

How can we avoid duplication? I've been contributing, but there's just so much I can do, and if there's no consensus and collaboration, it won't be much fun.


Howard

[Denis Cavanagh]

Collaboration is tough to achieve on something this small, unfortunately. The best thing to do is try and 'grab' someone along to help you out when you need another set of eyes... And return the favour once in a while 

[J. Noel Chiappa]

How can we avoid duplication? I've been contributing, but there's just so much I can do, and if there's no consensus and collaboration, it won't be much fun.

Duplication, how? Between articles here? Between here and other places?

As to the "so much [to] do", that's just what these encyclopaedia projects look like in the early days. It looks like you'll never get done, there's so much to do, and there's no way you can do it all. Don't worry about it - Wikipedia looked like this in the early days, too. Just do what you can, and don't worry about what you can't.

Noel

[Robert_W_King]

I wish we had a sychronous editing application that any citizen could join in on and edit.