It recently came to my attention that several experienced dumpers feel EAC is an *obsolete* tool for dumping audio tracks, and that it should no longer be used as the primary tool for dumping audio tracks. Furthermore, they expressed that both DiscImageCreator and PerfectRip were a much more suitable tool for audio track dumping (vs. EAC) because they both delivered more accurate and consistent results. While EAC may still have some value as an alternate validation tool, what I am hearing is that EAC is no longer the correct tool to be using for dumping audio tracks and that more suitable tools are available. I also gathered that this has been the case for some time, and that the practice of using EAC is rather antiquated.
Now if what I just shared is even *partially* accurate...then it underscores a fact that redump's WIKI documentation is severely outdated and needs to be better maintained by its experienced users.
A technical community (like redump) depends upon great WIKI documentation, and great WIKI documentation is always at its best when it is properly maintained by its experienced users in the community. The upside to providing quality WIKI documentation is that it always leads to good things:
Fewer mistakes
Better questions
Improved processes
Reduced learning curve for new users
Less PMs asking for help
And...an increase in quality dumps!
In short: it's a win-win for a everyone. You don't have to be Shakespeare to write good documentation. Even if you're re English isn't very strong, there will always be someone who can and will attempt to improve it (that's the beauty of the WIKI). So if you can lend a hand and help update the WIKI...then it would be highly beneficial to everyone in the long-run. I would advise beginning by reviewing the main guides first (e.g. Getting Started and Main CD Dumping Guide) and then expanding from there.
One last thing. The forums are a great place for discussing new techniques and experimenting with alternative processes and solutions...but at the end of the day the WIKI is where the final documentation belongs. It should *NOT* reside exclusively on the forums. Links to forum discussions are completely acceptable as long as any decisions and/or process changes are mirrored on the WIKI. Don't rely on the forum's search feature for looking up documentation, since a new user will never think to do this when a WIKI exists. 
CONCLUSION
We have a good start to the WIKI...it just needs to be better maintained. 
I will do my part to help improve the overall formatting and general infrastructure, but I need the experienced dumpers to make sure that the existing guides are current and up-to-date with the correct tools, links, step-by-step directions, pictures, forum links, and anything else that needs to be included. A well-written WIKI should be able to answer 80% of the questions without further modification. The remaining 20% should account for the "unique scenarios" which can be added as a footnote to help further close the gap to achieve 90-95% support resolution.
If redump's goal is indeed to dump every known game disc twice (verified)...then you'll want to take the time and get this step right. Otherwise, I don't think it would be to unreasonable to suggest that this project could take 20-30 years longer than it needs to...
Cheers!
-MrTikki-
P.S. My short-term motive for pointing this out is to reduce the amount of Q&A PMs that I've been sending to everyone about various dumping techniques (you know who you are--and I appreciate your help!). My long-term motive is to improve the documentation standards around here so that newcomers can jump right into dumping without having to hit every branch of the tree when they start to fall down the rabbit hole. 
