So, I go to your site, and I see a problem with a
page, and I click on
the Edit link, and I make the change, and I go back to...
1) not your site and the change is there.
2) your site, and the change is *not* there.
Neither of those seems perfect.
I think this is a little cost for the mirror. Our users are informed
that their editings are loaded back to us at next mirror time. I find
this more useful than no links to original Wikipedia and better than no
mirror. For us is no need off an daily (or hourly) up-to-date
encyclopaedia. We find two to four updates per month adequate.
Look, we are presenting the Wipedia data in our own design. They are
also integrated in our "E-Paper" which is an additional offer to our
paper readers (see
http://epaper.rhein-zeitung.de/06/04/23/ , load an
article and doubleclick any noun)
Those people completely off the grid shouldn't
have Wikipedia at all?
Surely not. For this purpose offline copies works perfect. But they are
not XORed to online dumps.
jo