I think a Wiki here is the right solution to the wrong problem. And I don't think the software should be integrated, because we'll probably send so much time trying to integrate it that we won't get anything else done. (qv language localisation for Scoop.)

J is right - we need a separate press arm/think-tank sending out press releases and papers.

The front page is more or less irrelevant as far as journalists are concerned. I don't see a problem with that, because reachable journalists need to be reached actively. We can't assume they'll come here just because we want them to, and I don't think we should retool a page that's doing a different job to try to attract them.

The work-in-progress Wiki idea doesn't solve the problems we need to have solved. Wikis are fine for subject-specific knowledge bases, but PR and journalist outreach has to be done differently - you can't just say 'Look at our excellent Wiki!' and expect anyone to be interested.

So the front page is not the place for sound bites. If it's there for anything it's to demonstrate the ET brand, and the rather chaotic nature of the front page is fine for that. It's no more or less coherent than a newspaper, and I think that's how it should be.

The narratives should be distilled into regular dated op-eds and formal papers and placed into a repository. When we have an interesting point to make, we turn them into a press release with one or two soundbites, attach a PDF of slightly more detailed key points, and include links to one or more papers with background information.

Papers can be Wikified, but more as a collaborative tool than as a developing database. Wikis aren't ideal for position papers or op-eds, but they're good for evolving background histories and glossaries.

Finished papers should probably be stored in fixed form as a historical record of points made and not considered a work in progress. That way we can always point to them and say 'We told you so' - which is rather harder with a straight Wiki.