Based on what you wrote in your mail about your hypothesis, I recommend you "StatsRus" website by Prof Paul Johnson. It's an excellent collection of R code snippets, and a veritable online oyster containing pearls of his wisdom :). Here is the link:
This set of "R solutions" is focused on performances (action oriented objectives) rather than concepts that "Intro to R" or some other tutorials provide. In my opinion, if Paul would let them be used in wikis, these code snippets and observations could be well suited for excellent wikis, ones that would not only teach a point or two about using R, but over time, and given enthusiastic people contributing/writing on it/modifying it (etc...), also could emerge as talking points for some really pithy discussions about using R for all levels of users.
>Date: Sun, 08 Jan 2006 15:12:57 -0500
> From: "Jack Tanner" <[hidden email]>
>Subject: [R] Wikis etc.
>To: [hidden email] >Cc: [hidden email] >Message-ID: <[hidden email]>
>Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed
>Philippe's idea to start a wiki that grows out of the content on
>http://zoonek2.free.fr/UNIX/48_R/all.html is really great. Here's why.
>My hypothesis is that the basic reason that people ask questions on R-help
>rather than first looking elsewhere is that looking elsewhere doesn't get
>them the info they need.
>People think in terms of the tasks they have to do. The documentation for R,
>which can be very good, is organized in terms of the structure of R, its
>functions. This mismatch -- people think of tasks, the documentation "thinks
>in" functions -- causes people to turn to the mailing list.
>What we need is documentation that can be browsed in terms of tasks, like
>http://zoonek2.free.fr/UNIX/48_R/all.html. If that can be edited by the
>community, all the better. This is especially good for newbies (like myself)
>who try a tutorial, find that it lacks in some aspect, and can give
>immediate feedback, e.g., via a Wiki.
>As far as keeping current with the latest versions of R, I think we'll have
>to arrive at some sort of convention that says: the code in this example
>works with R version X, package version Y. Then, if that code is found to
>fail in some future version, it's easy enough to make a second exampe. (As a
>bonus, these examples could be an automated test suite for R.)
>Philippe, if you find you'd like assistance, I'd like to help.