> I like what you're trying to do and see how great that tutorial connectio=
n from rdoc/yard could be, say, mixing with existing ruby-doc.org and rubyd=
oc.info. =A0But I question embedding source links to info in which the info=
 can easily grow outdated or abandoned as time passes. I also question the =
ongoing maintenance burdens.

What makes you think that info in a wiki will grow outdated or be
worse than the current rdoc?  (The fact that it's a wiki is meant to
help the maintenance burden be less in this regard--self-grooming).
The standard view of ruby is that basically you have to "buy a book"
in order to get quality documentation for it.  This is meant as a
first step to higher quality documentation.

I am aware of the links to various ruby documentation on ruby-lang.org
and ruby-doc.org (and indeed there is some quality work out there--the
original pickaxe being one), however, coming from a long-time Ruby
user, this doesn't seem to quite cut it.   (ex: runpaint.org -- search
for "Socket" examples--there are none.  Where are the tutorials in the
core rdoc's for "udp broadcast" -- there are none.  They don't even
seem to belong in core rdocs, but would be useful in some tutorials
section.).  Ruby could well benefit from a "blessed" section of
tutorials, at least from my perspective.  I don't understand why we
wouldn't want *more* tutorials rather than less.

Cheers!
-roger-