I keep returning to a couple of pages on our writing group's wiki-encyclopaedia, intending to simplify them and cut a lot of technical information out, and then giving up in a haze of confusion, irritation and unhappiness.

Providing this level of info in there only seems to be confusing—instead of fun and interesting, which had been the idea. So I keep returning to the idea of cutting out most of the first article, either to discard it altogether or to plonk it on a separate page. As it is, the page is long and complicated, and that might be daunting in itself.

I don't know. What would you look for in a well-written encyclopaedia article designed to be read on the web? Common sense tells me a summary/introduction first, medium level of detail next and then technical stuff later if at all. But in this case, what's the most important thing to go into the summary? The workings and all the different/difficult aspects—which are what I would find most interesting—or the practicalities for someone co-writing with me, like what the thing looks like while it's working? I suppose I've answered my own question to some extent, but still...

Seriously. I need to work on the subtle art of knowing what to leave out. When I'm asked questions about writing-type stuff, I automatically update the article to include that info—after all, if one person asked it, two or three others might be wondering it, and a bunch more might be labouring under false assumptions because they didn't think to wonder...

Look, dammit. I'm just too much of a pack-rat. Can't bear to murder the products of my own locqaciousness.