Doctrine Development: Wiki vs. the Doctrine Laboratory

Wiki riff-raff writing disjointedly, redundantly,
inconsistently, inaccurately and, worst of all, where the
editor cannot check on him.

There's a blog I enjoy keeping tabs on, published by the doctrine editorial staff at the "intellectual center of the Army."  A recent update struck me as humorous.  An editor wrote that "One of my concerns is about how doctrine developed in wiki drafts will be brought up to editorial standards. I've seen a draft developed by numerous contributors through the wiki. It had some really good ideas, but they were hard to pick out because, overall ...

the text was disjointed, redundant, inconsistent, and inaccurate. Among other things, they had kept a lot of obsolete text based on other doctrine that had changed. They were so focused on their specific topic that they hadn't verified the other doctrinal topics mentioned in the older version."

What's funny is that that is exactly the kind of writing that's churned out in the writing labs at every TRADOC center of excellence.  That's why we have editors and a staffing process.  But even published doctrine is sometimes "disjointed, redundant, inconsistent, and inaccurate, and all those other things.

The wiki-development process is being applied to doctrine development for the first time under the framework of Doctrine 2015, the School of Advanced Military Studies-inspired concept that aims to get doctrine out to the field and into the hands of soldiers faster and smaller, more accessible formats.  It's something new.  So, naturally, it's going to have some bugs.  

But we will have fewer bugs once we ever get TRADOC Regulation 25-36 revised and published.  What's up with that, anyway?  Maybe we should have put that one out on the wiki site.