On 04/08/2011, at 19:04, TerryE <[email protected]> wrote: > On 04/08/11 03:32, Jean Hollis Weber wrote: >> I've got completely lost in all the mutations of the "Refactoring" >> thread, and don't recall all that has been said, so please forgive me if >> what I'm about to suggest has been dealt with already. >> >> Two low-barrier methods I have seen work quite successfully on wikis, >> forums, and similar sites are: >> >> 1) People must ask for an account; they can't self-subscribe. Nothing is >> required except a few words about who you are and why you want an >> account. Any one of several people authorised to approve or reject these >> requests can deal with them expeditiously. Very few spammers, in my >> experience, take the trouble to actually request accounts. > We need to implement this in a way which sits within MediaWiki functionality > and complies with the goals. > > One way would be > > * to allow the normal self-registration and optional email address > with email verification > * and have a new wiki role, say "contributor" (or is this > contributer in US-speak?). > * guest have no write access > * registered users can write to User and User_talk namespaces but to > no others > * registered users can request to become a Contributor, but the must > have completed their User page, verified their email address and > confirmed that all future edits to the Main or Talk namespaces are > made under licence (CCA AL2 or whatever we decide. > * the granting of Contributor is done by the bureaucrats. > * The Main and Talk pages contain "reference" content. > * There is a standard disclaimer that user/user talk is user content > is user content > * We would still need main and user namespace guidelines TOUs. > > This might seem a little convolved, but this can be configured with std > MW/extension functionality. >> 2) Alternatively, or in addition, the first X edits/ contributions/ >> whatever are moderated by a group of people, any one of whom can approve >> or reject the items. After X acceptable contributions, the person is >> then allowed to edit the wiki without further supervision -- until or >> unless they start posting inappropriate material such as spam. Again, >> very few spammers will take the trouble to post some useful info before >> going into spam mode. >> >> These methods deal with the vast majority, if not all, of the concerns I >> have seen Rob expressing about systems with no control at all, but at >> the same time they do not require more time or commitment on the >> contributors' part to be authorised to participate. >> >> AFAIK, most wikis& similar sites provide some way to limit the editing >> of specific pages to a smaller group of people (admins or whatever). >> >> --Jean >> > We could add another committer layer so that contributer (but not committer) > edits are moderated > > However, I suspect that a trust-but-verify attitude is easier for everyone. > When we catch contributers deliberately abusing the rules, then we can always > back out their changes and remove contributer status. This is similar to our > forum model and works well there. > > Regards > Terry
You probably know more about this than I do, but my understanding is that the current OOo wiki has an extension installed that does what I was suggesting in option 2, but the extension has not been implemented. See: http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:FlaggedRevs and specifically: http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:FlaggedRevs#Automatic_user_promotion --Jean
