bobr,
You mention:
> How do you keep your site from getting inappropriate content?
> (graffiti)
Well, either that's what going on at rebol.org or the site must be under
alien attack! It's funny you should mention wiki. Please explain what
happened to the HTML source at http://www.rebol.org/web/wiki.html.
Most of your response would be useful to have in a "mission statement" or at
least something to let visitors to rebol.org know what it's about and how
they can contribute. It's interesting that you can go and modify wiki, but I
see no information at the site telling me how I can do the same thing. That
is, why do you have certain access privileges to this site and I don't.
Besides the script submission policy, I see no other way to make a
contribution to help improve the site.
I believe that whoever maintained the mailing list last year did not
understand its usefulness to the REBOL end user community. This was proven
last year when I and others asked where we could find an archived and
searchable mailing list. Within two months of my initial request, we finally
saw a searchable, web-based mailing list archive. In a recent posts, we have
heard of people having problems with using the mailing list, indicating, at
least to me, that it needs to be improved. I, as well as others would like
to see the mailing list go back further in time.Who do we go to for this?
Has anyone asked REBOL Technologies to take this over so that we can see a
more professional search system implemented? Just having a link on the
rebol.com website to this mailing list makes good marketing sense. REBOL
Technologies places at lot of articles by reporters praising REBOL on
rebol.com, it should at the very least offer potential users the opportunity
of seeing what "real users" of REBOL are saying and how they are using the
programming language.
Cheryl
----- Original Message -----
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, January 10, 2000 1:20 AM
Subject: [REBOL] rebol.org purpose (was "archive" )
> At 11:10 PM 1/9/00 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> ....
> >BTW, does anyone know what the purpose of rebol.org is? I see no mission
> >statement there. Nor, do I understand why the material on rebol.org has
to
> >be separate from rebol.com, that is, why not just have one website?
> >
> >Hope this helps,
> >
> >Cheryl
>
>
> It is there to distinguish/separate company position
> from user or general public comments. The opinions and code
> that appear on rebol.org do not represent the company.
>
> rebol.org does provide a venue for folks to add value
> who are not associated with the company.
> That alone is enough reason to have a separate site.
>
>
> short form ^above^ long form below \/
>
>
> Often you can get valuable insight from somebody
> who is not restricted by a company relationship.
> Either they can speak without asking for permission
> or they can make an observation that those on the inside
> cannot see because they are too close to it.
>
> After reading discussions here about "do on strings",
> "locals", "statics", "context" and binding I realized that
> I could offer up a code snippet as an example
> that was not purely academic (foo this/that)
> but instead derived from real live code.
>
> I just updated the page on 'do' at rebol.org -
>
> http://rebol.org/cgi-bin/cgiwrap/rebol/wiki.r?wiki=do
>
> I did not have to wait for company approval or endorsement.
> Similarly, the company is not liable for things I have
> contributed to the public site without this approval.
>
>
> why have a rebol.org ? why not just a mailing list?
>
> If you want to stimulate adoption of a product (rebol)
> then there must be provisions for adherents and
> user-groups to interact - to promote the free
> exchange of information.
>
> A mailing list like this one can do part of that -
> and it doesn't matter what follows the @ (rebol.org .com or .net)
> in the list name or if the product is even part of the list name.
> Since the sender of a message to a mailing list is a clear part
> of each message, it is easy to tell who represents the company.
> Not so with web pages.
>
> A mailing list or newsgroup has no permanence however.
> (At least not without an archive and even an archive
> has little for navigation aides.) Late comers lose.
> A website offers information permanence and navigational
> structure - late comers win because the information
> targets them. It allows them to get up-to-speed.
>
> Now back to your question:
> Assuming it is good to encourage permanence of public
> information exchange why not put it all on one website?
> Why not have a wiki at rebol.com?
>
> [ being one of the authors of a wiki it's hard for me
> to say "no" to this idea ]
>
>
> On a combined website, it would be difficult
> to determine which pages were written/endorsed
> by company people and which were written
> by the public with no endorsement.
>
> Delineating the supported stuff is critical
> in a commercial venture.
>
> You could define a user-contributed area or path prefix
> within the site (or several) and or delegate
> areas of responsibility to those who have shown
> responsibility in their replies to the mailing list.
> This is easy in a wiki that works with the server
> and basic-authentication to do delegation.
>
> If we leave liability out of the picture,
> you still have missed accrediting and graffiti potential.
>
> Publicly edited pages tend to get started by one and
> completed by a different one or several others.
> While a good wiki _can_ notate or tag _who_ last modified
> a page and who is its author/maintainer is, it becomes
> difficult to define the boundaries to that information.
> Who takes the credit if several tweakers edit a page?
>
> And who gets to do the writing?
> How do you keep your site from getting inappropriate content?
> (graffiti)
>
> Both of these are solved with a wiki that supports
> authentication and has a delegation model.
>
>
> But why bother if for little or no cost (just another domain)
> you can have an entirely separate site maintained
> by real users for real users?
>
> When rebol (the company) is ready to delegate more
> they will make the move to allow external folk
> to edit their content. Till then they have to work
> with the more limited documentation
> resources (people) that they have and submissions
> come through controlled channels.
>
> I am inclined to believe that the doc folks
> do look at rebol.org from time to time.
>
> -bobr
>
>
> {-----}
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
