[imc-cms] Comments on process and the 3 short listed CMS'

[ryan]

> Using wiki techniques on wiki pages gave the result that the
> scientific journal Nature judged science pages of the english language
> wikipedia to be at about the same level of accuracy and
> self-consistency with scientific knowledge as those of the
> Encyclopedia Britannica. These techniques include: editing the pages
> is *not* restricted to just the best experts in the topic; "good
> faith" is assumed when people make edits; the NPOV principle.

I don't think I understand one sentence in this entire paragraph
because it is filled with jargon that I just don't know. I guess it
comes from the culture of wikipedia volunteers? Either way, whether
this is "an" IMC CMS or "the" IMC CMS is such a stupid conversation
that I don't even think it deserves a response beyond pointing out how
stupid it is. No one could ever make "the" IMC CMS because of the
autonomous nature of the network. So why are you going and on and on
about it? We have work to do before the end of the month.
-ryan