Archdevs, What is the current policy for having wiki-contributions re-written? I have been a wiki-contributor for years, I've more than 28 years Unix/Linux experience, I am an attorney, a registered professional engineer, and I have spent years doing technical writing for NASA MOD and Space Flight Operations -- I know technical writing. Over the past year or so it seems like every wiki contribution made is re-written to the point that the immediacy of the needed information is lost, is replaced by a link, or the contribution is reworded in a bewildering manner. Under what criteria does this take place? It has gotten to the point where you just get tired of helping -- why bother? Under the current system, the pages are slowly becoming less-useful rather than more useful as more and more information is chopped out of pages or replaced by links to 3rd-party pages that may (or may not) be there tomorrow. When I first began using Arch in '09, the pages were written such that you could fully-complete whatever task the page addressed without bouncing around from page-to-page hunting for all the pieces of the puzzle. That is no longer the case. Don't get me wrong, the Arch-wiki pages are still by far the most useful of any distribution, but understanding the criteria under which this is taking place will help those willing to contribute determine whether to make a contribution or not. The goal being to keep the Arch-wiki, the very best that it can be. Thanks. -- David C. Rankin, J.D.,P.E.