Joshua D. Drake wrote:
Gregory Stark wrote:
Josh Berkus <> writes:

I was actually hoping for more feedback on the content itself. I'm
still not clear if it's supposed to be "developers only - to the
exclusion of users" or "developers only - but accessable to anyone".
It should be readable by everyone, but editable only by authorized users.

I think the lessons of wikipedia is precisely that you *don't* want to add
such barriers. You want to let people add stuff pretty much freely. That
encourages people to get involved and put up information.

I don't agree, you should also look at the recent post and fork by one of wikipedia's co-founders. The developers wiki should only be edited by authorized users.

Now, getting authorized should be easy as reasonably possible, but having a wholesale editing orgy on the wiki responsible for tracking postgresql developer information is not a good idea.

I agree.
Banning IPs is simply not feasible.
I think a minor moderation step during the signup is little overhead and ensures we know who changed what etc. This is obviously not only important for blaming but also great for talking to people about a given page when it comes time to update it.

I think however there should be a "section" that is free for all. It should be clearly labeled with parts are free for all and which are not. It should be easy to move pages from one section to the other and back.

Essentially I would say the wiki should be open to anyone who signs up, however there should be pages that are only writeable to people inside a special group. I am not sure how the ACL works in the current wiki. SOme wikis allow you to define ACL's by page, some allow you to create subwikis with different ACLs etc.


---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster

Reply via email to