1. Email-address verification of the user automatically adds the user
to the project
2. First few contributions by the user are modified by the admin, once
they prove themselves genuine and worthy, they can be moved to
non-moderated status and their future contributions are automatically
I imagine these sites work from the frantic effort of very large
numbers of contributors (much larger than we should expect).
Twenty-four hours per day, there is someone monitoring edits to their
favourite wikipedia page. From complaints I've seen from burnt-out
contributors, the spam and
Am Dienstag 27 Februar 2007 schrieb Tom Purl:
I don't think that anyone is rejecting Wikibooks outright. I think that
they should be on our non-Google top 5 list personally. I just think
that people are cautious because very few people have experience with
it. No one for sure knows whether
Tom Purl wrote:
[...]
There are two types of users in a Google project, members and owners.
Members have access to *everything* except the project administration
tab. If a malicious user were added as a member, he/she could very
easily wreck the wiki because it's stored in an SVN repository, to
Paul Irofti write:
I don't understand why Google Wiki is being discussed here as the main
solution. As I see it there are a few _major_ disadvantages of using it:
I can understand that you may have something against using Google, but
there is no reason to be paranoid about it.
- it has
Tom Purl wrote:
Ok, so the majority of people seem to be saying that the Google wiki
isn't very well-suited for our needs. Most notably, it's very likely
that it will severely inhibit contributions. I agree with this
whole-heartedly.
Also, a lot of people are discussing third-party wiki
Steve Hall wrote:
From: Yakov Lerner, Mon, February 26, 2007 5:38 am
On 2/26/07, A.J.Mechelynck wrote:
If we gan get hosting space somewhere for a mediawiki server, I'm
all in favour.
From: http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Wiki_Science:How_to_start_a_Wiki
I started one here ages
Denis Perelyubskiy wrote:
On Mon, 26 Feb 2007 09:29:32 -0600 (CST), Tom Purl [EMAIL PROTECTED]
said:
Ok, so the majority of people seem to be saying that the Google wiki
isn't very well-suited for our needs. Most notably, it's very likely
that it will severely inhibit contributions. I
On 2/27/07, Bram Moolenaar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Tom Purl wrote:
Ok, so the majority of people seem to be saying that the Google wiki
isn't very well-suited for our needs. Most notably, it's very likely
that it will severely inhibit contributions. I agree with this
whole-heartedly.
Hi!
--- Bram Moolenaar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Using wikibooks.org sounds attractive, but I don't see any protection
against spamming. And that is exactly what happens to the Vim tips.
It's just a matter of time before this happens on wikibooks.org too.
WikiMedia, which is the software of
Samuel Wright wrote:
On 27/02/07, Bram Moolenaar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Using wikibooks.org sounds attractive, but I don't see any protection
against spamming. And that is exactly what happens to the Vim tips.
It's just a matter of time before this happens on wikibooks.org too.
The
Georg Dahn wrote:
--- Bram Moolenaar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Using wikibooks.org sounds attractive, but I don't see any protection
against spamming. And that is exactly what happens to the Vim tips.
It's just a matter of time before this happens on wikibooks.org too.
WikiMedia, which
Tom Purl wrote:
However, there are still people, including Bram, who seem to feel pretty
strongly about using the Google wiki. Bram, are we going down the wrong
track by planning for a non-Google wiki? For this site, I think it's
very important that we get as close to a consensus as
The automated mail account would:
- Drop any message where subject does not start with vimtip.
- Forward vimtip messages to a Vim mailing list.
Ideally there would also be some logic to switch off if a burst
of messages occurs (abuse defence). I realise that an automatic
way of spamming a mailing
Tom Purl wrote:
Besides that, transferring all existing tips to the wiki needs to be
tried out.
I don't understand what you mean here. Are you saying that we should
move forward with a Google wiki conversion, irrespective of whether or
not we end up using the Google wiki?
No, I meant
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 27-Feb-07, at 10:35 AM, Tom Purl wrote:
Using wikibooks.org sounds attractive, but I don't see any protection
against spamming. And that is exactly what happens to the Vim tips.
It's just a matter of time before this happens on wikibooks.org
Am Dienstag 27 Februar 2007 schrieb Bram Moolenaar:
I do wonder how they avoid spamming. It seems anyone can edit a page.
The combinations of several options:
1) Recent Changes can be monitored by RSS feed.
2) Very many users.
3) Administrators have a rollback option and can hunt down edit by
Am Montag 26 Februar 2007 schrieb Steve Hall:
From: Yakov Lerner, Mon, February 26, 2007 5:38 am
On 2/26/07, A.J.Mechelynck wrote:
If we gan get hosting space somewhere for a mediawiki server, I'm
all in favour.
From: http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Wiki_Science:How_to_start_a_Wiki
I
Am Freitag 23 Februar 2007 schrieb Yakov Lerner:
My opinion is that that wikipedia-style wiki is the best. It's scalable,
it proved itself, i think it's easy on admins, afaik it's used not only by
wikipedia.
Of course not! There is Wikibooks which is often underestimated:
Am Freitag 23 Februar 2007 schrieb Tom Purl:
So what do you guys think?
Have you noticed the vi book on Wikibooks. More then half the book is allready
dedicated to Vim:
http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Learning_the_vi_editor/Vim
We could just as well turn the book into a Vim book. It also has a
Using wikibooks.org sounds attractive, but I don't see any protection
against spamming. And that is exactly what happens to the Vim tips.
It's just a matter of time before this happens on wikibooks.org too.
I agree that spam protection should be our top priority.
Why ? We already have the
On 2/25/07, Tom Purl [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I do think that we can do the addition of new people who want to be
able to edit the wiki manually. That should also filter out the
spammers. There is only a delay between wanting to edit the wiki and
being able to do it the first time. Not
Hello vimmers,
I don't understand why Google Wiki is being discussed here as the main
solution. As I see it there are a few _major_ disadvantages of using it:
- it has software limitations that a large community, such as ours,
can't cope with
- it's managed and offered by a third party
On 26/02/07, Denis Perelyubskiy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sun, 25 Feb 2007 18:57:00 -0800, Suresh Govindachar
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
What is wrong with just having a visual image based manual check
as the last step of editing a wiki page? (I hope you know what I
mean by visual
Paul Irofti wrote:
Hello vimmers,
I don't understand why Google Wiki is being discussed here as the main
solution. As I see it there are a few _major_ disadvantages of using it:
- it has software limitations that a large community, such as ours,
can't cope with
- it's managed and offered by
On 2/26/07, A.J.Mechelynck [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Paul Irofti wrote:
Hello vimmers,
I don't understand why Google Wiki is being discussed here as the main
solution. As I see it there are a few _major_ disadvantages of using it:
- it has software limitations that a large community, such
+0200
Subject: Re: VimTips - Google Wiki Usefulness
On Mon, Feb 26, 2007 at 11:24:10AM +0100, A.J.Mechelynck wrote:
If we gan get hosting space somewhere for a mediawiki server, I'm all in
favour.
I'm not sure what the hosting deal is with vim.org or how much traffic
it generates, but if we
On Mon, Feb 26, 2007 at 05:38:42AM -0500, Yakov Lerner wrote:
ElWiki.com
Free MediaWiki hosting with fast setup. A free .com/net/org domain
is offered for wikis which reach 10 pages of content. Google AdSense
text-ads may be added to the right sidebar to cover hosting expenses.
From:
Yakov Lerner ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
On 2/26/07, A.J.Mechelynck [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Paul Irofti wrote:
Hello vimmers,
I don't understand why Google Wiki is being discussed here as the main
solution. As I see it there are a few _major_ disadvantages of using it:
- it has
Hi!
On Mon, 26 Feb 2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
ElWiki.com
Free MediaWiki hosting with fast setup. A free .com/net/org domain
is offered for wikis which reach 10 pages of content. Google AdSense
text-ads may be added to the right sidebar to cover hosting expenses.
From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Yakov Lerner ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
On 2/26/07, A.J.Mechelynck [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Paul Irofti wrote:
Hello vimmers,
I don't understand why Google Wiki is being discussed here as the main
solution. As I see it there are a few _major_ disadvantages of using
On Mon, Feb 26, 2007 at 12:55:58PM +0100, A.J.Mechelynck wrote:
!
Obligations
# The service is provided free-of-charge, as-is, and without any
guarantees or obligations.
# We reserve the right to cancel or alter the service at any time.
From: Yakov Lerner, Mon, February 26, 2007 5:38 am
On 2/26/07, A.J.Mechelynck wrote:
If we gan get hosting space somewhere for a mediawiki server, I'm
all in favour.
From: http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Wiki_Science:How_to_start_a_Wiki
I started one here ages ago here:
Ok, so the majority of people seem to be saying that the Google wiki
isn't very well-suited for our needs. Most notably, it's very likely
that it will severely inhibit contributions. I agree with this
whole-heartedly.
Also, a lot of people are discussing third-party wiki hosting sites and
the
On Mon, 26 Feb 2007 09:29:32 -0600 (CST), Tom Purl [EMAIL PROTECTED]
said:
Ok, so the majority of people seem to be saying that the Google wiki
isn't very well-suited for our needs. Most notably, it's very likely
that it will severely inhibit contributions. I agree with this
I do think that we can do the addition of new people who want to be
able to edit the wiki manually. That should also filter out the
spammers. There is only a delay between wanting to edit the wiki and
being able to do it the first time. Not perfect, but it's something
that we can setup
Tom Purl
I do think that we can do the addition of new people who want
to be able to edit the wiki manually. That should also filter
out the spammers. There is only a delay between wanting to
edit the wiki and being able to do it the first time. Not
perfect, but it's something
On Sun, 25 Feb 2007 18:57:00 -0800, Suresh Govindachar
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
What is wrong with just having a visual image based manual check
as the last step of editing a wiki page? (I hope you know what I
mean by visual image based manual check -- it is the scheme in
which the
On Sun, 25 Feb 2007 15:43:06 -0600 (CST), Tom Purl [EMAIL PROTECTED]
said:
I do think that we can do the addition of new people who want to be
able to edit the wiki manually. That should also filter out the
spammers. There is only a delay between wanting to edit the wiki and
being able
On Sun, 25 Feb 2007 23:06:54 -0800, Denis Perelyubskiy
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
On Sun, 25 Feb 2007 15:43:06 -0600 (CST), Tom Purl [EMAIL PROTECTED]
said:
I do think that we can do the addition of new people who want to be
able to edit the wiki manually. That should also filter out the
On 2/24/07, Bram Moolenaar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I do think that we can do the addition of new people who want to be able
to edit the wiki manually.
Your manual binds here to the addition, correct ? Not to the
edit the wiki, correct, Bram ?
Did you mean here
we can do manual addition of
Bram Moolenaar wrote:
I think this puts too much burdon the volunteers that become an admin.
And it defeats the easy of use of a wiki.
I was suggesting that people who have a tip, or a change, would
email it to a Vim mailing list, where it would be massaged by the
community, then posted to the
John Beckett ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
Bram Moolenaar wrote:
I think this puts too much burdon the volunteers that become an admin.
And it defeats the easy of use of a wiki.
I was suggesting that people who have a tip, or a change, would
email it to a Vim mailing list, where it would be
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
John Beckett ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
Bram Moolenaar wrote:
I think this puts too much burdon the volunteers that become an admin.
And it defeats the easy of use of a wiki.
I was suggesting that people who have a tip, or a change, would
email it to a Vim mailing
I've done a bit of work on the vimtips wiki at Google the last few days,
and it's come to my attention that it isn't really designed to do what
we want it to do. The Google wiki is designed to be used by a small
number of people working on a particular open source project. It is not
designed to
On 2/23/07, Tom Purl [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I've done a bit of work on the vimtips wiki at Google the last few days,
and it's come to my attention that it isn't really designed to do what
we want it to do. The Google wiki is designed to be used by a small
number of people working on a
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 23-Feb-07, at 3:00 PM, Brian McKee wrote:
On 23-Feb-07, at 2:32 PM, Tom Purl wrote:
I've done a bit of work on the vimtips wiki at Google the last few
days,
and it's come to my attention that it isn't really designed to do
what
we want it
Tom Purl wrote:
I've done a bit of work on the vimtips wiki at Google the last few days,
and it's come to my attention that it isn't really designed to do what
we want it to do. The Google wiki is designed to be used by a small
number of people working on a particular open source project. It
Yakov Lerner wrote:
[...]
My opinion is that that wikipedia-style wiki is the best. It's scalable,
it proved itself, i think it's easy on admins, afaik it's used not only by
wikipedia.
Regarding anonymous contributions, they proved problematic on vim.org/tips.
Anonymous contrib was what created
Brian McKee wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 23-Feb-07, at 3:00 PM, Brian McKee wrote:
On 23-Feb-07, at 2:32 PM, Tom Purl wrote:
I've done a bit of work on the vimtips wiki at Google the last few days,
and it's come to my attention that it isn't really designed to do
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 23-Feb-07, at 3:55 PM, A.J.Mechelynck wrote:
Waiting for email (with a pseudorandom confirmation code) proves
that the registration wasn't requested in your name by someone
else. It requires no human intervention server-side and only a few
Brian McKee wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 23-Feb-07, at 3:55 PM, A.J.Mechelynck wrote:
Waiting for email (with a pseudorandom confirmation code) proves that
the registration wasn't requested in your name by someone else. It
requires no human intervention server-side
I like the concept of using the Google wiki. In addition to the Google
is Good factor, there is the likelihood of very high reliability and zero
cost. Also, it seems appropriate due to Bram's work.
As has been pointed out, spam is a really big threat, and will get
worse (more automated) every
John Beckett wrote:
I like the concept of using the Google wiki. In addition to the Google
is Good factor, there is the likelihood of very high reliability and zero
cost. Also, it seems appropriate due to Bram's work.
As has been pointed out, spam is a really big threat, and will get
54 matches
Mail list logo
