sure. so how about editing the original statement? given that it’s quite clear that what you said is factually incorrect.
me listing wiki.cardano.org in NO way implies “@RobJF’s wiki” in its former, current, future or any form for that matter.
especially with all the evidence of my historical opinion of it.
no one but @RobJF assumed then implied (for some weird questionable reasons only known to him) that it would be “his wiki”. NOT me - HE did.
so make that factual edit (that would essential be you disagreeing with his egotistical presumptions) and see if this “Thank you” sentiment stays true:
now as for whether the use of the word “wiki” should or should not apply to a possible NEW wiki.cardano.org - that’s a whole separate issue.
whilst i see what you’re getting at from a security / verification / authentication standpoint. the disadvantages you point to could quite effectively be mitigated by permissions (edits and or approvals) applied to sensitive areas/pages. it’s actually quite simple and straight forward. while the advantages, the wealth of rich, diverse contributions from the community of hundreds to thousands would be lost, if not greatly adversely affected because of semantics?
it just doesn’t add up, choosing not to use the word » wiki « which communicates community contribution because of security measures which could otherwise easily be mitigated?