Here's my assessment for the section assigned to me ("The Business Case for DITA"):
Making the Business Case for DITA - REWRITE (decent content, but many links to ditausers.org which are design to underscore key points)
Is content management important? - REMOVE (good subject, sole focus is on WCMSes, *long* out of date)
Is structure important? - REMOVE (focus almost solely on history of IA, not on business case for why structured content is worthwhile)
Is content reuse important? - REMOVE (subject good, outdated)
Is single-sourcing important? - REWRITE (could do with a re-focus/update, but is still accurate)
Is translation important? - REMOVE (subject good, content outdated and too brief to be useful)
Do you markup your content? - REMOVE (outdated)
Is your content modular? - REMOVE (wrong question to ask, outdated)
Is your content conditional? - REMOVE (wrong question to ask, outdated)
Is your content task-oriented and minimalist? - REMOVE (wrong question to ask, outdated)
Is standardization important? - REMOVE (outdated)
What is your DITA Quotient (D.Q.)? - REWRITE (laughably outdated but a good idea; relies on links to DITANew.com which is also dead)
Note: several articles link to ditausers.org which is effectively dead
Essentially all but the first article are disposal/out-of-date. The focus of most of the questions just seems just seems odd 7 years after these were all written. Many of the articles are too brief or too much off topic to be directly useful attempting to use them today. Suggest a re-write of the main article and dispose of the rest.
Sent: Sunday, August 2, 2015 10:52 PM
To: DITA Tech Comm SC; dita-adoption@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: [dita-adoption] Review of dita.xml.org wiki specialization articles.
Introduction to specialization: Rewrite
Guidelines for Specializers: Rewrite
Troubleshooting specialization: Remove
Training specialization: Remove
OASIS DITA specialization subcommittees: Remove