We currently are differentiating between “Methods”, “Concepts”, “Thoughts, ideas and comments”, and separating “Wiki” content from “Sharing” content. I find these differentiations unnecessary and artificial. I suggest that we include all such articles in a single main category: Wiki. The discussion option which @Neidl_c has envisioned for some topics, is built in to this forum format already and available for ALL topics, so we do not need a separate category for it.
I’ve drafted a Google Doc outlining a way to organize our presentation of CDR methods for the wiki. It is based on specific process steps. For some methods, there may be multiple options for processing; some methods are not described fully from atmosphere to final fate, but we can explain this limit in the method articles. Each method of CDR will have its own article, and so will each process step. The overview articles will be for categories of convenience like “all known CDR methods” “nature-based CDR” “High-permanance CDR” or whatever articles users find helpful.
For each method of CDR we encounter, we should explain early in the description of that method how it works in terms of the processing steps described above (and other such steps as we need to add for a complete list). For each processing step we describe, there should be a link to each CDR method that employs that processing step somewhere in the method. As we learn limitations and enhancements to each processing step, students of any related CDR method can readily discover the knowledge via link.
I believe this approach can be extended to our advocacy efforts as well (and within this wiki framework) So although the ways of organizing advocacy may be infinite in number, we can organize our understanding of advocacy successes in terms of some basic process steps from formulation to legislation to enforcement or incentive.