Should the site link to Microwiki?

[AngelGuardian93]

I cant vote a, "I'm boycotting the Wiki" can I? There are no flowers, no not this time. There will be no angels gracing the lines, just these stark words I find.

[osmose1000]

I'm a bit wary of continuously linking to the wiki, and want some more opinions on it.Yes! The wiki rocks! We should use it more!Eh, if you want, it's fine with me.FNORD!I'd try to keep the count down, but sure.No. The website and the wiki should be kept seperate.Show results They call it a signature, but no one ever signs their posts...

[Scott of Hyperborea]

Why wouldn't it?EDIT: Ohhh...you mean actual pages on the website instead be wiki articles? I think no...and since I already voted yes, I'm going to vote no twice with double logins. Edited by: Scott of Hyperborea  at: 9/20/05 19:41

[Fax Celestis]

I say that certain sites should be Wikied. For instance: a FAQ of micronations in general should be in the wiki to make it easy to keep up to date and maintain. A in-depth description of what exactly a specific subdivision is could be a potential link within an existing subdivision page. Etc. Etc. Viatax Sitadi Axdivijink Regigoraauk

[Gryphon the Pure]

Seriously. Don't link the Wiki directly from the site. If you don't have information for a page, leave a placeholder page that gives a specifically marked wiki link.A website and an encyclopedia are completely different types of media and should not be mixed.Specifically, I browse a website when looking for clear and consise answers to my questions. If I want a several-page explanation of something, that's what I look to an encyclopedia for. Edited by: Gryphon the Pure at: 9/20/05 19:55

[Scott of Hyperborea]

http://www.theonion.com/content/node/40990