> "but there is a desire to be able to assert a certain amount of accountability for the information and allowing/monitoring all community edits makes that difficult."
Yes, I bet there is a desire by all corporations to control community activity, but that is absolutely not the wiki way. This wiki has nothing to do with you in a corporate sense, it's a community wiki and not a BeagleBoard.org wiki. You have hijacked for purposes of company control something that you have no inherent right to control as a company.
And yes, you did force an effective redirect, because you renamed "BeagleBone" to "BeagleBone Community" and BeagleBone now points to your master portal page. And it sticks out like a sore thumb, because the portal page isn't even about BeagleBone --- it should be renamed "BeagleBone Sites". Wiki pages names describe objects, and your portal does not.
I have not reverted because I don't want war, but what you have done is totally out of step with the wiki meme, a company grab of a community page name and assertion of domain over it. Morgaine (talk) 14:54, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
I neither completely agree or disagree. I didn't architect this switch-over. There is a desire to maintain control over some of the content to guarantee the quality. I believe the wiki-way is to closely monitor and edit the pages, yet not all of the documentation maintainers are willing to watch the changes so closely.
Can you make specific suggestions to address your concerns?
What a mess. I don't like the layout at all. It seems intentionally confusing. I'll try to find some time to adjust the wording and links to remove some of the confusion. (Not sure when I'll get to it, though.)
this was the best solution we could come up with that would satisfy all parties. suggestions are welcome on this. at the time we had four separate wiki sites, all of which are now combined into one at elinux. the core "official" beagle parts are required to have closed permissions on edits. the community pages are open.