Re: [Wikimediaau-l] official wiki
I don't think it's a good idea to remove it - we want to get more member participation happening in 2010, and there simply wasn't the scope for that in 2009, hence why it wasn't utilised. cheers Andrew 2009/12/11 K. Peachey p858sn...@yahoo.com.au Yes it is possible to edit it, for details: mwbot-deux To edit the navigation menu on the left, edit [[MediaWiki:Sidebar]] using its special syntax. For more details, see http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Manual:Interface/Sidebar. ___ Wikimediaau-l mailing list Wikimediaau-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaau-l ___ Wikimediaau-l mailing list Wikimediaau-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaau-l
Re: [Wikimediaau-l] official wiki
I too would like to see the chapter wiki being used more, especially for planning IRL events. Perhaps the issue is not so much that the Billabong isn't the right place but that (as mentioned) it's not used by many people as yet - this is largely a factor of the relatively low number of people who are allowed to edit. Currently editing rights on the Australian chapter wiki are restricted to members. I note that the UK chapter's wiki http://uk.wikimedia.org/wiki/Main_Pageallows IP editing (though not on the mainpage) whilst the other English language chapter (NYC) focuses their attention on the meta-wiki pagehttp://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_New_York_City(which is also open for IP editing). Given this discussion is happening on the wikimedia-au list, rather than the members'-only list, perhaps it is pertinent to ask: would the subscribers to this list be more willing to become involved with the Australian chapter's wiki, events, and eventually perhaps also join the chapter if the Wiki was open for at least logged-in editing from all people? One advantage of this would be that we could centralise discussion about planning activities in Australia on the Australian chapter's wiki rather than having to split it across Wikipedia's meetup pages. One disadvantage of this would be that one of the promoted benefits of membership (being able to edit the wiki) is no longer exclusive. From a personal point of view, I believe that increasing the editability of the chapter wiki will increase the number and range of things happening in Australia and therefore become a driver of membership and activity. But, I'd like to hear what the current non-members think. -Liam (yes, I'm a member) wittylama.com/blog Peace, love metadata On Fri, Dec 11, 2009 at 11:38 AM, Sarah Ewart sarahew...@gmail.com wrote: I assume it's the same with our wiki though I haven't actually checked myself, but usually editing the MediaWiki interface pages requires admin rights. We really don't want people stuffing around at will with the main interface. I also agree with Andrew about the Billabong page. It's meant to be a page where people can make suggestions and ask for help or whatever and we don't want to make it harder for people to find the central discussion/help page if they need it. I don't see how it not being used much makes a difference. There's only a small number of people who even have accounts with edit rights and the website is still very young so you could justify removing just about all the sidebar links by saying they're not currently used much. As Andrew said, we want to build the membership and as the active members grow the central discussion page will become more useful and important and in the interim it's there for anyone who needs it. On Fri, Dec 11, 2009 at 9:20 PM, Andrew orderinchao...@gmail.com wrote: I don't think it's a good idea to remove it - we want to get more member participation happening in 2010, and there simply wasn't the scope for that in 2009, hence why it wasn't utilised. cheers Andrew 2009/12/11 K. Peachey p858sn...@yahoo.com.au Yes it is possible to edit it, for details: mwbot-deux To edit the navigation menu on the left, edit [[MediaWiki:Sidebar]] using its special syntax. For more details, see http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Manual:Interface/Sidebar. ___ Wikimediaau-l mailing list Wikimediaau-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaau-l n ___ Wikimediaau-l mailing list Wikimediaau-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaau-l ___ Wikimediaau-l mailing list Wikimediaau-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaau-l ___ Wikimediaau-l mailing list Wikimediaau-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaau-l
Re: [Wikimediaau-l] official wiki
Re planning activities - there doesn't seem much evidence of the meetup pages being used for planning of any kind at present. Most of the meetup pages are deadzones, with only Sydney having any recent editing activity whatsoever (Melbourne and Canberra both show their August meetups as being next rather than last). The problem we have is that we're still very much in the outreach phase and do not yet have critical mass, so discussing events (beyond planning them) in areas where people are unlikely to find them is somewhat counterproductive. I'm not in favour of open editing simply because it is, and should be, a membership benefit - it is after all our official wiki and announcement area. I'm not opposed to individuals being granted access from outside when it suits our purposes to do so - eg our partners in GLAM and elsewhere, or any other official collaborations which explicitly pull in non-Wikimedians. cheers Andrew 2009/12/11 Liam Wyatt liamwy...@gmail.com I too would like to see the chapter wiki being used more, especially for planning IRL events. Perhaps the issue is not so much that the Billabong isn't the right place but that (as mentioned) it's not used by many people as yet - this is largely a factor of the relatively low number of people who are allowed to edit. Currently editing rights on the Australian chapter wiki are restricted to members. I note that the UK chapter's wiki http://uk.wikimedia.org/wiki/Main_Pageallows IP editing (though not on the mainpage) whilst the other English language chapter (NYC) focuses their attention on the meta-wiki pagehttp://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_New_York_City(which is also open for IP editing). Given this discussion is happening on the wikimedia-au list, rather than the members'-only list, perhaps it is pertinent to ask: would the subscribers to this list be more willing to become involved with the Australian chapter's wiki, events, and eventually perhaps also join the chapter if the Wiki was open for at least logged-in editing from all people? One advantage of this would be that we could centralise discussion about planning activities in Australia on the Australian chapter's wiki rather than having to split it across Wikipedia's meetup pages. One disadvantage of this would be that one of the promoted benefits of membership (being able to edit the wiki) is no longer exclusive. From a personal point of view, I believe that increasing the editability of the chapter wiki will increase the number and range of things happening in Australia and therefore become a driver of membership and activity. But, I'd like to hear what the current non-members think. -Liam (yes, I'm a member) wittylama.com/blog Peace, love metadata On Fri, Dec 11, 2009 at 11:38 AM, Sarah Ewart sarahew...@gmail.comwrote: I assume it's the same with our wiki though I haven't actually checked myself, but usually editing the MediaWiki interface pages requires admin rights. We really don't want people stuffing around at will with the main interface. I also agree with Andrew about the Billabong page. It's meant to be a page where people can make suggestions and ask for help or whatever and we don't want to make it harder for people to find the central discussion/help page if they need it. I don't see how it not being used much makes a difference. There's only a small number of people who even have accounts with edit rights and the website is still very young so you could justify removing just about all the sidebar links by saying they're not currently used much. As Andrew said, we want to build the membership and as the active members grow the central discussion page will become more useful and important and in the interim it's there for anyone who needs it. On Fri, Dec 11, 2009 at 9:20 PM, Andrew orderinchao...@gmail.com wrote: I don't think it's a good idea to remove it - we want to get more member participation happening in 2010, and there simply wasn't the scope for that in 2009, hence why it wasn't utilised. cheers Andrew 2009/12/11 K. Peachey p858sn...@yahoo.com.au Yes it is possible to edit it, for details: mwbot-deux To edit the navigation menu on the left, edit [[MediaWiki:Sidebar]] using its special syntax. For more details, see http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Manual:Interface/Sidebar. ___ Wikimediaau-l mailing list Wikimediaau-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaau-l n ___ Wikimediaau-l mailing list Wikimediaau-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaau-l ___ Wikimediaau-l mailing list Wikimediaau-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaau-l ___ Wikimediaau-l mailing list
Re: [Wikimediaau-l] official wiki
On Fri, Dec 11, 2009 at 3:27 PM, Sarah Ewart sarahew...@gmail.com wrote: On Sat, Dec 12, 2009 at 2:01 AM, Gnangarra gnanga...@gmail.com wrote: 2009/12/11 Liam Wyatt liamwy...@gmail.com One disadvantage of this would be that one of the promoted benefits of membership (being able to edit the wiki) is no longer exclusive. Seriously is this a benefit, whats the wiki for why would anyone join up just to edit the wiki No one will ever join the chapter to get editing rights. The connection of editing rights granted to members and motivation for membership is a step too far and illogical. I don't think anyone really believes that editing rights is a motivation for joining, but it is a right granted to members. Most, possibly all, people join the chapter because they want to support it and that's it. However, I don't support opening editing for the reasons that were raised by several people when this was last discussed a few months ago. We have in the past granted editing rights to people for special reasons (as Andrew referred to, we gave GLAM partners access for organising and working on GLAM) but in general I support editing remaining as a membership right. If no one will join in order to get the right to edit then its value as a right is relatively small. Maybe in the future it will indeed be a valuable right (like some professional associations have log-in websites too) but for the moment having it closed seem to be benefiting neither the members or the non-(potential)-members. The giving of the special access to people has happened, IIRC with two accounts. Both were War Memorial staff who were helping with the preparation of GLAM-WIKI and not as a thankyou or benefit of having been a partner in the event. On the other hand, the reason why the GLAM-WIKI recommendationshttp://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/GLAM-WIKI_Recommendationslive at meta rather than at the chapter wiki (where they, ideally, should have resided) was to allow people to comment on them. though that Wikimedia is built on a philopsy of anyone can edit, surely promoting that philopsy is the aim of the chapter. Wouldnt it be wise for Wikimedia-Australia to hold that as corner stone of its purpose. Does anyone think that the goals and ideals which we hold dear should not be what we present in our public place. I think this is flawed logic too. The Wikimedia Foundation's own website is invitation only, as is the internal wiki, the Chapter's wiki, the OTRS wiki, the ArbCom wiki, etc. All for different reasons, but the idea that we should open editing to anyone because Wikipedia is built on a philosphy of open editing is a wonky rationale IMO. We aren't Wikipedia and we're not obligated to run the chapter in the same way Wikipedia runs. The main reason I don't support opening editing up is that we lack an online community to deal with the problematic edits and vandalism etc that we'll inevitably have to deal with. It's the public face of the chapter and the pages need to be maintained accurately, the membership pages, minutes and resolutions need to have integrity. The UK chapters' website restricts editability to the various pages that are of importance e.g. meeting minuteshttp://uk.wikimedia.org/wiki/Meetings, donation http://donate.wikimedia.org.uk/, constitutionhttp://uk.wikimedia.org/wiki/Constitution... but because it allows editing by default anyone can contribute to volunteerhttp://uk.wikimedia.org/wiki/Volunteer and water cooler http://uk.wikimedia.org/wiki/Water_cooler. The integrity of the things that need to remain stable is maintained, but it still allows for people to engage. On the other hand, neither the Frenchhttp://www.wikimedia.fr/and German http://www.wikimedia.de/ chapter websites are wikis - they're normal read-only websites. I think both of these latter chapters are something that the Australia can aspire to in terms of capacity, activities, members and pretty-website-ness, but the UK chapter is probably a fairer comparison because our chapters are effectively the same age and have the same budgets (up till now). The chapter Wiki as a way of facilitating discussion within the Australian community is a good starting point, let it be a host for members to write about their wiki experiences, to seek help in opening doors to the GLAM sector, let it be somewhere for non wiki people to seek assistance in opening their doors and making what they have collected freely available to all. I also disagree with this. The chapter's wiki is a special purpose wiki, its official website and public face, it's not a free all-purpose hosting venue. I don't think that being a place where people who are interested in Australian Wikimedia activities can discuss things is considered all-purpose hosting. Sure, if people start spamming etc. we would have to respond somehow (I would suggest requiring login - no IP editing) but if people start talking *too much* on the chapter wiki then I
Re: [Wikimediaau-l] official wiki
re : 'I though that Wikimedia is built on a philopsy of anyone can edit, surely promoting that philopsy is the aim of the chapter. Wouldnt it be wise for Wikimedia-Australia to hold that as corner stone of its purpose. Does anyone think that the goals and ideals which we hold dear should not be what we present in our public place.' Yes yes yes! I'm another strong supporter of open access editing for the wmau wiki - I think it's a really good idea, and is borderline embarassing that it's currently restricted :-) best, Peter, PM. On Sat, Dec 12, 2009 at 2:58 AM, Liam Wyatt liamwy...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Dec 11, 2009 at 3:27 PM, Sarah Ewart sarahew...@gmail.com wrote: On Sat, Dec 12, 2009 at 2:01 AM, Gnangarra gnanga...@gmail.com wrote: 2009/12/11 Liam Wyatt liamwy...@gmail.com One disadvantage of this would be that one of the promoted benefits of membership (being able to edit the wiki) is no longer exclusive. Seriously is this a benefit, whats the wiki for why would anyone join up just to edit the wiki No one will ever join the chapter to get editing rights. The connection of editing rights granted to members and motivation for membership is a step too far and illogical. I don't think anyone really believes that editing rights is a motivation for joining, but it is a right granted to members. Most, possibly all, people join the chapter because they want to support it and that's it. However, I don't support opening editing for the reasons that were raised by several people when this was last discussed a few months ago. We have in the past granted editing rights to people for special reasons (as Andrew referred to, we gave GLAM partners access for organising and working on GLAM) but in general I support editing remaining as a membership right. If no one will join in order to get the right to edit then its value as a right is relatively small. Maybe in the future it will indeed be a valuable right (like some professional associations have log-in websites too) but for the moment having it closed seem to be benefiting neither the members or the non-(potential)-members. The giving of the special access to people has happened, IIRC with two accounts. Both were War Memorial staff who were helping with the preparation of GLAM-WIKI and not as a thankyou or benefit of having been a partner in the event. On the other hand, the reason why the GLAM-WIKI recommendationshttp://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/GLAM-WIKI_Recommendationslive at meta rather than at the chapter wiki (where they, ideally, should have resided) was to allow people to comment on them. though that Wikimedia is built on a philopsy of anyone can edit, surely promoting that philopsy is the aim of the chapter. Wouldnt it be wise for Wikimedia-Australia to hold that as corner stone of its purpose. Does anyone think that the goals and ideals which we hold dear should not be what we present in our public place. I think this is flawed logic too. The Wikimedia Foundation's own website is invitation only, as is the internal wiki, the Chapter's wiki, the OTRS wiki, the ArbCom wiki, etc. All for different reasons, but the idea that we should open editing to anyone because Wikipedia is built on a philosphy of open editing is a wonky rationale IMO. We aren't Wikipedia and we're not obligated to run the chapter in the same way Wikipedia runs. The main reason I don't support opening editing up is that we lack an online community to deal with the problematic edits and vandalism etc that we'll inevitably have to deal with. It's the public face of the chapter and the pages need to be maintained accurately, the membership pages, minutes and resolutions need to have integrity. The UK chapters' website restricts editability to the various pages that are of importance e.g. meeting minuteshttp://uk.wikimedia.org/wiki/Meetings, donation http://donate.wikimedia.org.uk/, constitutionhttp://uk.wikimedia.org/wiki/Constitution... but because it allows editing by default anyone can contribute to volunteer http://uk.wikimedia.org/wiki/Volunteer and water coolerhttp://uk.wikimedia.org/wiki/Water_cooler. The integrity of the things that need to remain stable is maintained, but it still allows for people to engage. On the other hand, neither the Frenchhttp://www.wikimedia.fr/and German http://www.wikimedia.de/ chapter websites are wikis - they're normal read-only websites. I think both of these latter chapters are something that the Australia can aspire to in terms of capacity, activities, members and pretty-website-ness, but the UK chapter is probably a fairer comparison because our chapters are effectively the same age and have the same budgets (up till now). The chapter Wiki as a way of facilitating discussion within the Australian community is a good starting point, let it be a host for members to write about their wiki experiences, to seek help in opening doors to the GLAM sector, let
Re: [Wikimediaau-l] official wiki
At the end of the day, and I think this is a point that isn't well understood because we have a foot on both sides of the border, this is the official wiki for a non profit organisation. The wiki's set up in such a way that those that are willing to support the aims of the organisation can edit freely. I don't know of any other similar organisations which offer open editing or participation - one I know that runs meetings for its members (and this is just networking!) charges $10 for non-members to attend a meeting; another runs closed email lists that non-members can't even see. As for the argument re vandalism - that isn't even our biggest prospective problem. The biggest is actually misrepresentation - the risk that we will be discredited as an organisation in the eyes of those we seek to build partnerships with. In the relatively insular world of free culture, edginess seems like a good thing, but in the real world, quite apart from our legal and other obligations with CAV, we have to deal with businesses, large organisations, governments, NGOs and the like. We're competing for their attention with more professional outfits which can offer them something. We're asking them to give us something - which requires a standard of credibility and professionalism. If random chaos is unfolding on our official website (and that is what it is), we have a bit of a problem in that area. Expecting already busy committee members (and I'm not even speaking for myself here) to monitor the wiki in such circumstances is an imposition on them and a completely unnecessary one - what do we stand to benefit from it, as against the costs? cheers Andrew 2009/12/12 Peter Halasz qub...@gmail.com Sarah, The only actual reason you've given for not opening up the wiki to non-members is because of fear of vandalism. Ok, so we have a problem: Potential vandalism. Solutions? 1. Actually observe actual vandalism before locking anything down. 2. Assign a couple of people to patrolling recent changes once a week 3. Locking individual pages when we require their integrity to be preserved. 4. Requiring wiki users to sign in 5. Requiring new wiki users to wait 3 days before editing 6. Banning everyone but paid members, who, after paying their membership, can apply for an account, which, when it expires, is no longer allowed to edit. C'mon, seriously? You went with #6? To combat vandalism? Although, as you say, we CAN keep the wiki locked up, why SHOULD we? And why with such tight control? Peter Halasz. User:Pengo (Lapsed member) ___ Wikimediaau-l mailing list Wikimediaau-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaau-l ___ Wikimediaau-l mailing list Wikimediaau-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaau-l
Re: [Wikimediaau-l] official wiki
(Note that my comments above are addressed to a hypothetical situation of open editing, not the current situation which is manageable by any objective standard.) 2009/12/12 Andrew orderinchao...@gmail.com At the end of the day, and I think this is a point that isn't well understood because we have a foot on both sides of the border, this is the official wiki for a non profit organisation. The wiki's set up in such a way that those that are willing to support the aims of the organisation can edit freely. I don't know of any other similar organisations which offer open editing or participation - one I know that runs meetings for its members (and this is just networking!) charges $10 for non-members to attend a meeting; another runs closed email lists that non-members can't even see. As for the argument re vandalism - that isn't even our biggest prospective problem. The biggest is actually misrepresentation - the risk that we will be discredited as an organisation in the eyes of those we seek to build partnerships with. In the relatively insular world of free culture, edginess seems like a good thing, but in the real world, quite apart from our legal and other obligations with CAV, we have to deal with businesses, large organisations, governments, NGOs and the like. We're competing for their attention with more professional outfits which can offer them something. We're asking them to give us something - which requires a standard of credibility and professionalism. If random chaos is unfolding on our official website (and that is what it is), we have a bit of a problem in that area. Expecting already busy committee members (and I'm not even speaking for myself here) to monitor the wiki in such circumstances is an imposition on them and a completely unnecessary one - what do we stand to benefit from it, as against the costs? cheers Andrew 2009/12/12 Peter Halasz qub...@gmail.com Sarah, The only actual reason you've given for not opening up the wiki to non-members is because of fear of vandalism. Ok, so we have a problem: Potential vandalism. Solutions? 1. Actually observe actual vandalism before locking anything down. 2. Assign a couple of people to patrolling recent changes once a week 3. Locking individual pages when we require their integrity to be preserved. 4. Requiring wiki users to sign in 5. Requiring new wiki users to wait 3 days before editing 6. Banning everyone but paid members, who, after paying their membership, can apply for an account, which, when it expires, is no longer allowed to edit. C'mon, seriously? You went with #6? To combat vandalism? Although, as you say, we CAN keep the wiki locked up, why SHOULD we? And why with such tight control? Peter Halasz. User:Pengo (Lapsed member) ___ Wikimediaau-l mailing list Wikimediaau-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaau-l ___ Wikimediaau-l mailing list Wikimediaau-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaau-l
Re: [Wikimediaau-l] official wiki
Here's my reasons for why ordinary people (i.e. non-members) just might like to edit the site from the last time this discussion was had: On Fri, May 29, 2009 at 10:55 PM, Lloyd Nguyen zero1...@gmail.com wrote: I think I have to ask, what kind of things could/would a non-member edit on the site? They might like to RSVP to an event. That's the main thing that comes to mind. Also discussion pages (discuss a policy or concern), or fix a typo or formatting. And they might like to be able to contribute in the time leading up to taking on membership. And there will be unforeseen reasons too. I know this is a friendly discussion, but it feels odd having to justify why a wiki should be open here. Lastly, it's a bit of a turn off having to email someone and waiting for response to get access, and I'm sure there are people who simply would see that requirement as being too much bother in comparison to the edit they want to make, or even take the restriction as being less than than welcoming. If spam is the main reason to have accounts, would using a CAPTCHA for non-confirmed accounts help? (is that a simple option in Mediawiki?) Otherwise I'd recommend nothing more restrictive than confirm email address to edit Peter Halasz ___ Wikimediaau-l mailing list Wikimediaau-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaau-l
Re: [Wikimediaau-l] official wiki
That is called framing the question. Of course *that* kind of participation would be unproblematic. But let's not forget the minutes, resolutions and official activities of the chapter are hosted there, along with our Statement of Purpose and etc. Like I said, as a non-profit organisation we have obligations both to the membership and to the registry (CAV in our case), and those who visit our site should be able to trust what they read as far as it pertains to our organisation and its activities. 2009/12/12 Peter Halasz qub...@gmail.com You think that by opening the wiki up to users with autoconfirmed email addresses, so that they might put themselves down as attending an event, we are at risk of being misrepresented and discredited? I'm sorry I'm not bothering to participate in this conversation any longer. Peter Halasz User:Pengo On Sat, Dec 12, 2009 at 10:37 AM, Andrew orderinchao...@gmail.com wrote: At the end of the day, and I think this is a point that isn't well understood because we have a foot on both sides of the border, this is the official wiki for a non profit organisation. The wiki's set up in such a way that those that are willing to support the aims of the organisation can edit freely. I don't know of any other similar organisations which offer open editing or participation - one I know that runs meetings for its members (and this is just networking!) charges $10 for non-members to attend a meeting; another runs closed email lists that non-members can't even see. As for the argument re vandalism - that isn't even our biggest prospective problem. The biggest is actually misrepresentation - the risk that we will be discredited as an organisation in the eyes of those we seek to build partnerships with. In the relatively insular world of free culture, edginess seems like a good thing, but in the real world, quite apart from our legal and other obligations with CAV, we have to deal with businesses, large organisations, governments, NGOs and the like. We're competing for their attention with more professional outfits which can offer them something. We're asking them to give us something - which requires a standard of credibility and professionalism. If random chaos is unfolding on our official website (and that is what it is), we have a bit of a problem in that area. Expecting already busy committee members (and I'm not even speaking for myself here) to monitor the wiki in such circumstances is an imposition on them and a completely unnecessary one - what do we stand to benefit from it, as against the costs? cheers Andrew 2009/12/12 Peter Halasz qub...@gmail.com Sarah, The only actual reason you've given for not opening up the wiki to non-members is because of fear of vandalism. Ok, so we have a problem: Potential vandalism. Solutions? 1. Actually observe actual vandalism before locking anything down. 2. Assign a couple of people to patrolling recent changes once a week 3. Locking individual pages when we require their integrity to be preserved. 4. Requiring wiki users to sign in 5. Requiring new wiki users to wait 3 days before editing 6. Banning everyone but paid members, who, after paying their membership, can apply for an account, which, when it expires, is no longer allowed to edit. C'mon, seriously? You went with #6? To combat vandalism? Although, as you say, we CAN keep the wiki locked up, why SHOULD we? And why with such tight control? Peter Halasz. User:Pengo (Lapsed member) ___ Wikimediaau-l mailing list Wikimediaau-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaau-l ___ Wikimediaau-l mailing list Wikimediaau-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaau-l ___ Wikimediaau-l mailing list Wikimediaau-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaau-l ___ Wikimediaau-l mailing list Wikimediaau-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaau-l
Re: [Wikimediaau-l] official wiki
So lock those specific pages. Have you ever used Wikipedia? Do you think it would exist if they were worried only about representation? ___ Wikimediaau-l mailing list Wikimediaau-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaau-l
Re: [Wikimediaau-l] official wiki
You are charging volunteers to help you. ___ Wikimediaau-l mailing list Wikimediaau-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaau-l
Re: [Wikimediaau-l] official wiki
Omg the terrorists are coming! They are armed with web browsers of mass destruction and are going to change our constitution to say jimmy wales is a poo! ___ Wikimediaau-l mailing list Wikimediaau-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaau-l
Re: [Wikimediaau-l] official wiki
I'm not sure why there's an assumption that edits by members are trustworthy (and edits by others are not). Since anyone can become a member, it's not reasonable to expect none of them will ever do anything bad on the wiki. And you're going to have a problem blocking them from the wiki if editing that is supposed to be something that they've been promised in return for their membership fee - do you want to have to give back their money if you find you need to block them? A better option might be to protect important pages and be quick to block problem users. Angela ___ Wikimediaau-l mailing list Wikimediaau-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaau-l
Re: [Wikimediaau-l] official wiki
Peter (Halasz), um... your last post is probably not helpful. I happen to agree with you that it is a good idea to make the chapter Wiki more open to editing. However, this is a discussion about the validity/importance/appropriateness of doing so and making inflammatory statements risks you falling foul of 'godwins law' and, by corollary, losing automatically. :-) This discussion here has heard from people who are members, elected committee and lapsed members, but I think we've yet to hear from anyone who is not a member as to whether they would be more willing to be involved with chapter activities. I would like to point to the UK chapter's water coolerhttp://uk.wikimedia.org/wiki/Water_cooler as an example of the kind of active conversations that I think the Chapter should be hosting on our Billabong http://wikimedia.org.au/wiki/Billabong - which is where this whole discussion started from. I note with interest that they recently had a discussion on that page about whether their wiki should allow IP editing or not. Could any non-members who are following this discussion please pipe up, as, all current discussants are members and by definition are already allowed to edit and therefore any change wouldn't affect them very much. In any case, I have added to the agenda of the forthcoming committee meeting an item about whether we should change editing rights. -Liam [[witty lama]] wittylama.com/blog Peace, love metadata On Sat, Dec 12, 2009 at 12:44 AM, Angela bees...@gmail.com wrote: I'm not sure why there's an assumption that edits by members are trustworthy (and edits by others are not). Since anyone can become a member, it's not reasonable to expect none of them will ever do anything bad on the wiki. And you're going to have a problem blocking them from the wiki if editing that is supposed to be something that they've been promised in return for their membership fee - do you want to have to give back their money if you find you need to block them? A better option might be to protect important pages and be quick to block problem users. Angela ___ Wikimediaau-l mailing list Wikimediaau-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaau-l ___ Wikimediaau-l mailing list Wikimediaau-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaau-l
