On Tue Jan 27 2015 at 6:17:35 PM chris tharp <[email protected]> wrote:
> Chad -- why would Mediawiki be the wrong tool if someone wanted to exercise > some form of access control? Considering the number of extensions that have > created for different types of access control it seems to be a very popular > desire. Just because someone desires access control doesn't mean that they > don't want the wiki experience elsewhere in their website -- they just > don't want it on every page. There's lots of extensions. Doesn't mean they're all good ideas ;-) Wikis are meant to be open and all pages in a namespace should be equal. When they're not, that's what protection is for. > (Implicitly Mediawiki developers agree with > this philosophy since all Mediawiki Namespace pages on every wiki have > access control). Sure, per-namespace edit permissions make sense. Because not all namespaces are equal. NS_MEDIAWIKI can damage the site so it's restricted by default. I totally could respect an argument for a wiki protected NS_TEMPLATE or NS_MODULE in the same manner. > Strangely the only type of access control build into > Mediawiki is a top-down centralized type of access control, which is > strange when you think about it. Everyone agrees some type of access > control needs to build into the software, but Mediawiki, out of the > package, only allows a top-down centralized approach. Others just want more > varied types of access control than the off-the-shelf model presented > inside a standard Mediawiki. > > Sure, access controls make sense for different actions or namespaces (see above). I just think per-page ACLs are incompatible with the idea of a wiki and there are other tools better suited for the job. -Chad _______________________________________________ MediaWiki-l mailing list To unsubscribe, go to: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/mediawiki-l
