Re: [Wikimediaau-l] official wiki

[private musings]

'...As it is, three already busy committee members are the main
editors.'

  !! ;-) (ps. I think Andrew's post sort of has cause and
effect a bit bassackwards ;-)
I see it this way - if engaging and growing membership is a priority then
lowering the bar for engagement is a good thing. I have had quite a few
conversations with folk who I believe would be quite interested in Chapter
based activity, and I'd really like to say things like 'hey, head over to
our wiki and you can sign up' or 'hey, that's a good idea, you should join
our wiki, and we can work on it' - or even just organising having the
ability to RSVP, leave a note or a question.
I think wikis are wonderful collaborative environments, and (as others have
said) it feels a bit odd to me to have to try and wave the flag for more
open editing here - what about the old 'let's be bold, give it a go, and
see!' approach? If the barbarians are at the gates, and the wiki gets taken
over with nonsense we could just flip the switch back, no?
Any Father Ted fans out there will know what I mean if I say 'ah go on... go
on go on go on..'
cheers,
Peter,
PM.
___
Wikimediaau-l mailing list
Wikimediaau-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaau-l

Re: [Wikimediaau-l] official wiki

[Andrew]

2009/12/14 Liam Wyatt 

> If we hope to get more grassroots involvement in the chapter then IMO we
> cannot force people to pay $40 and register an account before they can
> engage in chapter activities. Volunteers should not be forced to pay money
> to volunteer.


Why is it assumed that "volunteering" == "editing the chapter wiki"? It
seems like a strange argument to me.

We're getting projects happening here in Perth and as far as I know neither
of our other financial members, both of whom are fully entitled to accounts,
have one or have asked for one (if they did we'd certainly enable it, but my
point stands.) Increasingly our future is likely going to be with a majority
of members who support our mission who are not even from a WMF-project
background, and are much more likely to engage with us through social media,
messenger, email, telephone and in person.

Additionally, there isn't enough people involved on the wiki as it is to
justify an argument that more people should be at the table. We have 47
members - if I saw even 10 editing productively, I'd say there could be an
argument for more open involvement. As it is, three already busy committee
members are the main editors.

cheers
Andrew
___
Wikimediaau-l mailing list
Wikimediaau-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaau-l

Re: [Wikimediaau-l] official wiki

[Michelle Gallaway]

This might be silly, but can you set it so that IPs and non-members can only
edit pages in the Talk: space or something?  That would allow discussion to
occur around important issues while keeping the integrity of things like the
minutes and the constitution protected.

Of course as Angela said there's no way of really defending against a
"rogue" financial member changing the constitution to "ENCYCLOPEDIAS ARE
GAY", but I guess that's the price you pay for accessibility.

On Mon, Dec 14, 2009 at 1:05 PM, Liam Wyatt  wrote:

> It seems there are a variety of arguments that have now been put forward
> against opening up editing to non-members:
>
> * "It's a member benefit" - I think we all agree that this is no longer
> held as a valid claim. IIRC this was the SOLE reason why we didn't have open
> editing to start with, but no matter.
>
> * "There'll be lots of vandalism" - This has been responded to with the
> proposal that only logged-in editing be allowed and some form of
> CAPTCHA/email confirmation be used to stop spambots.
>
> * "We need to keep the official pages stable" - The official pages (rules,
> minutes, donation info...) can be easily locked from editing in just the
> same way that the copyright notice page on Wikipedia is locked. We could
> even use some form of flagged-revs if we chose.
>
> * "It will look bad to our potential partner organisations" - I have heard
> many criticisms or complaints from external organisations/professionals
> about Wikimedia/Wikipedia/Wikimedia-Australia and none of them have been
> about the potential for unruly discussion on the chapter wiki. If an
> organisation is unwilling to work with the Chapter on the basis that there
> might be some disucssion on the wiki that they don't like, then they've
> obviously never heard of Wikipedia. Many organisations have some form of
> public discussion section on their website (e.g. comments on company blogs)
> and this does not meant that people think less of the company.
>
> If we hope to get more grassroots involvement in the chapter then IMO we
> cannot force people to pay $40 and register an account before they can
> engage in chapter activities. Volunteers should not be forced to pay money
> to volunteer. Any organisation that choses not to associate itself with
> WM-Au on the basis that we operate a wiki that members of the general public
> can edit is more than likely not ready to work with an organisation that
> promotes free-culture at all. And, just like on WP, we can indeed include
> layers of locks or tags that indicate 'this page is official policy' or
> 'this page is for general discussion'.
>
> -Liam
>
>
>
> wittylama.com/blog
> Peace, love & metadata
>
>
> On Mon, Dec 14, 2009 at 11:21 AM, Brian Salter-Duke  > wrote:
>
>> There has been a lot of discussion about the official wiki and who
>> should be able to edit it. This is in response to the whole debate, so I
>> have not kept any other comments.
>>
>> This wiki is the official wiki. It is how we present ourselves, not just
>> to members, but to prospective members, to regulatory bodies, to Glam
>> institutions who we hope to work with, with a range of other bodies and
>> with the general public.
>>
>> It is the only place where our rules are displayed, where minutes of
>> general and committee meetings are recorded, and a host of other
>> official stuff. We are incorporated. We are a legal entity.  We now
>> have approval to fund raise in Victoria. We need to apply for fund
>> raising approval to all other States and Territories, except the NT. We
>> have an ABN. We will be applying for deductible gift recipient (DGR)
>> status. All this has to be reflected in our official pages.
>>
>> We are trying hard to relate in a professional manner with a large range
>> of GLAM institutions across the country. They will look to our official
>> wiki for reliable information about us. They will judge how serious we
>> are by how professional we present ourselves.
>>
>> The issue is not really about vandalism, but the integrity and
>> professionalism of the whole official wiki. Vandalism with certainly
>> destroy that, but so will edits that discuss ideas that are not
>> officially approved, and edits that are inappropriate. If readers find
>> information that they find to be inaccurate or inappropriate, they will
>> conclude that we are not a serious professional body that they can work
>> with, and they may doubt the accuracy of material on what are clearly
>> official pages.
>>
>> This does not mean that we have to restrict editing to the committee,
>> but we have to make sure that integrity and professionalism is preserved
>> and indeed enhanced. It is not just a question of removing vandalism.
>> There are some pages that must never be allowed to be vandalised. Karl
>> has suggested that the committee does not need to be involved in
>> removing vandalism, but this misses the point. Certainly non-committee
>> members can assist with improving and preserving the w

Re: [Wikimediaau-l] official wiki

[Brian Salter-Duke]

On Mon, Dec 14, 2009 at 02:05:42PM +1100, Liam Wyatt wrote:
> It seems there are a variety of arguments that have now been put forward
> against opening up editing to non-members:
> 
> * "It's a member benefit" - I think we all agree that this is no longer held
> as a valid claim. IIRC this was the SOLE reason why we didn't have open
> editing to start with, but no matter.

I agree.
 
> * "There'll be lots of vandalism" - This has been responded to with the
> proposal that only logged-in editing be allowed and some form of
> CAPTCHA/email confirmation be used to stop spambots.

Still a pain, like the spam on the mailing list.
 
> * "We need to keep the official pages stable" - The official pages (rules,
> minutes, donation info...) can be easily locked from editing in just the
> same way that the copyright notice page on Wikipedia is locked. We could
> even use some form of flagged-revs if we chose.

It is more than stable. Some, like minutes, must never change. Soem,
like rules, need a general meeting to change them. The process is quite
different from most wikis.

> * "It will look bad to our potential partner organisations" - I have heard
> many criticisms or complaints from external organisations/professionals
> about Wikimedia/Wikipedia/Wikimedia-Australia and none of them have been
> about the potential for unruly discussion on the chapter wiki. If an
> organisation is unwilling to work with the Chapter on the basis that there
> might be some disucssion on the wiki that they don't like, then they've
> obviously never heard of Wikipedia. Many organisations have some form of
> public discussion section on their website (e.g. comments on company blogs)
> and this does not meant that people think less of the company.

Right now they probably do not know about our wiki. I am certainly not
saying that they will consciously say they are "unwilling to work with
the Chapter on the basis that there might be some discussion on the wiki
that they don't like". I would say that they may get put off if they get
the impression that our wiki is not professional about who and what we
are. They might not recognise why they are being put off.
 
> If we hope to get more grassroots involvement in the chapter then IMO we
> cannot force people to pay $40 and register an account before they can
> engage in chapter activities. Volunteers should not be forced to pay money
> to volunteer. 

I agree.

> Any organisation that choses not to associate itself with WM-Au on the
> basis that we operate a wiki that members of the general public can
> edit is more than likely not ready to work with an organisation that
> promotes free-culture at all. 

See above.

> And, just like on WP, we can indeed include layers of locks or tags
> that indicate 'this page is official policy' or 'this page is for
> general discussion'.

It is not like WP. WP policies can be changed by consensus so we can
have edit wars on policy pages. Much of our stuff can only be changed by
either the committee or a General Meeting (Annual or Special). That is
why I say that for these pages we have to lock down and explain with a
tag.

Maybe we should move stuff that is not wiki-editable to a non-wiki web
site on the same server. We can give links to it from the wiki. That
would make it clear that it is fixed approved stuff. It would free up
the wiki to be like a wiki. At present most of it is not like a wiki. 

Brian.

> -Liam
> 
> 
> wittylama.com/blog
> Peace, love & metadata
> 
> 
> On Mon, Dec 14, 2009 at 11:21 AM, Brian Salter-Duke
> wrote:
> 
> > There has been a lot of discussion about the official wiki and who
> > should be able to edit it. This is in response to the whole debate, so I
> > have not kept any other comments.
> >
> > This wiki is the official wiki. It is how we present ourselves, not just
> > to members, but to prospective members, to regulatory bodies, to Glam
> > institutions who we hope to work with, with a range of other bodies and
> > with the general public.
> >
> > It is the only place where our rules are displayed, where minutes of
> > general and committee meetings are recorded, and a host of other
> > official stuff. We are incorporated. We are a legal entity.  We now
> > have approval to fund raise in Victoria. We need to apply for fund
> > raising approval to all other States and Territories, except the NT. We
> > have an ABN. We will be applying for deductible gift recipient (DGR)
> > status. All this has to be reflected in our official pages.
> >
> > We are trying hard to relate in a professional manner with a large range
> > of GLAM institutions across the country. They will look to our official
> > wiki for reliable information about us. They will judge how serious we
> > are by how professional we present ourselves.
> >
> > The issue is not really about vandalism, but the integrity and
> > professionalism of the whole official wiki. Vandalism with certainly
> > destroy that, but so will edits that discuss ideas that are not
>

Re: [Wikimediaau-l] official wiki

[Liam Wyatt]

It seems there are a variety of arguments that have now been put forward
against opening up editing to non-members:

* "It's a member benefit" - I think we all agree that this is no longer held
as a valid claim. IIRC this was the SOLE reason why we didn't have open
editing to start with, but no matter.

* "There'll be lots of vandalism" - This has been responded to with the
proposal that only logged-in editing be allowed and some form of
CAPTCHA/email confirmation be used to stop spambots.

* "We need to keep the official pages stable" - The official pages (rules,
minutes, donation info...) can be easily locked from editing in just the
same way that the copyright notice page on Wikipedia is locked. We could
even use some form of flagged-revs if we chose.

* "It will look bad to our potential partner organisations" - I have heard
many criticisms or complaints from external organisations/professionals
about Wikimedia/Wikipedia/Wikimedia-Australia and none of them have been
about the potential for unruly discussion on the chapter wiki. If an
organisation is unwilling to work with the Chapter on the basis that there
might be some disucssion on the wiki that they don't like, then they've
obviously never heard of Wikipedia. Many organisations have some form of
public discussion section on their website (e.g. comments on company blogs)
and this does not meant that people think less of the company.

If we hope to get more grassroots involvement in the chapter then IMO we
cannot force people to pay $40 and register an account before they can
engage in chapter activities. Volunteers should not be forced to pay money
to volunteer. Any organisation that choses not to associate itself with
WM-Au on the basis that we operate a wiki that members of the general public
can edit is more than likely not ready to work with an organisation that
promotes free-culture at all. And, just like on WP, we can indeed include
layers of locks or tags that indicate 'this page is official policy' or
'this page is for general discussion'.

-Liam


wittylama.com/blog
Peace, love & metadata


On Mon, Dec 14, 2009 at 11:21 AM, Brian Salter-Duke
wrote:

> There has been a lot of discussion about the official wiki and who
> should be able to edit it. This is in response to the whole debate, so I
> have not kept any other comments.
>
> This wiki is the official wiki. It is how we present ourselves, not just
> to members, but to prospective members, to regulatory bodies, to Glam
> institutions who we hope to work with, with a range of other bodies and
> with the general public.
>
> It is the only place where our rules are displayed, where minutes of
> general and committee meetings are recorded, and a host of other
> official stuff. We are incorporated. We are a legal entity.  We now
> have approval to fund raise in Victoria. We need to apply for fund
> raising approval to all other States and Territories, except the NT. We
> have an ABN. We will be applying for deductible gift recipient (DGR)
> status. All this has to be reflected in our official pages.
>
> We are trying hard to relate in a professional manner with a large range
> of GLAM institutions across the country. They will look to our official
> wiki for reliable information about us. They will judge how serious we
> are by how professional we present ourselves.
>
> The issue is not really about vandalism, but the integrity and
> professionalism of the whole official wiki. Vandalism with certainly
> destroy that, but so will edits that discuss ideas that are not
> officially approved, and edits that are inappropriate. If readers find
> information that they find to be inaccurate or inappropriate, they will
> conclude that we are not a serious professional body that they can work
> with, and they may doubt the accuracy of material on what are clearly
> official pages.
>
> This does not mean that we have to restrict editing to the committee,
> but we have to make sure that integrity and professionalism is preserved
> and indeed enhanced. It is not just a question of removing vandalism.
> There are some pages that must never be allowed to be vandalised. Karl
> has suggested that the committee does not need to be involved in
> removing vandalism, but this misses the point. Certainly non-committee
> members can assist with improving and preserving the wiki, but the
> committee has to be involved. That is what the committee is elected for.
> The committee is responsible for the integrity and professionalism of
> our official presentation outside the association.
>
> As a wikimedian, of course I am in favour of opening up the wiki as much
> as we can, but as a member of the committee and as Public Officer
> responsible for reporting on our work to Consumer Affairs Victoria, I am
> very conscious of the responsibility to preserve the integrity and
> professionalism of the official wiki. If we decide to open it up, we
> must be quite open about what we are doing. We can not just protect some
> pa

Re: [Wikimediaau-l] official wiki

[Brian Salter-Duke]

There has been a lot of discussion about the official wiki and who
should be able to edit it. This is in response to the whole debate, so I
have not kept any other comments.

This wiki is the official wiki. It is how we present ourselves, not just
to members, but to prospective members, to regulatory bodies, to Glam
institutions who we hope to work with, with a range of other bodies and
with the general public. 

It is the only place where our rules are displayed, where minutes of
general and committee meetings are recorded, and a host of other
official stuff. We are incorporated. We are a legal entity.  We now
have approval to fund raise in Victoria. We need to apply for fund
raising approval to all other States and Territories, except the NT. We
have an ABN. We will be applying for deductible gift recipient (DGR)
status. All this has to be reflected in our official pages.

We are trying hard to relate in a professional manner with a large range
of GLAM institutions across the country. They will look to our official
wiki for reliable information about us. They will judge how serious we
are by how professional we present ourselves.

The issue is not really about vandalism, but the integrity and
professionalism of the whole official wiki. Vandalism with certainly
destroy that, but so will edits that discuss ideas that are not
officially approved, and edits that are inappropriate. If readers find
information that they find to be inaccurate or inappropriate, they will
conclude that we are not a serious professional body that they can work
with, and they may doubt the accuracy of material on what are clearly
official pages.

This does not mean that we have to restrict editing to the committee,
but we have to make sure that integrity and professionalism is preserved
and indeed enhanced. It is not just a question of removing vandalism.
There are some pages that must never be allowed to be vandalised. Karl
has suggested that the committee does not need to be involved in
removing vandalism, but this misses the point. Certainly non-committee
members can assist with improving and preserving the wiki, but the
committee has to be involved. That is what the committee is elected for.
The committee is responsible for the integrity and professionalism of
our official presentation outside the association. 

As a wikimedian, of course I am in favour of opening up the wiki as much
as we can, but as a member of the committee and as Public Officer
responsible for reporting on our work to Consumer Affairs Victoria, I am
very conscious of the responsibility to preserve the integrity and
professionalism of the official wiki. If we decide to open it up, we
must be quite open about what we are doing. We can not just protect some
pages, or restrict editing of some pages to certain groups. We must be
clear to the readers. 

I therefore propose that all pages be clearly tagged with a statement of
their status. Pages of rules, minutes, etc. should be tagged with
something like "This page is an official page of Wikimedia Australia
Inc. and is approved by the association. Editing is restricted to
members of the committee". Other pages might be tagged with something
like "This page is for the development of ideas by members and supports.
Editing is open to all. The page does not necessarily reflect the
official views of Wikimedia Australia Inc." We might have a whole series
of different tags. The idea is that the reader will not be mislead about
our official views and will be quite clear where authentic information
is to be found. The committee, because it is responsible, must have the
total right to tag any page on the wiki with the first tag above and to
restrict editing of that page to the committee. There can be no debate
about this. The committee is responsible.

Of course these tags will be criticised as being ugly, but to me they
are essential. I can only support opening up editing on the official
wiki, if we do clearly tag all articles to make their status absolutely
clear.

Cheers, Brian.

-- 
Brian Salter-Duke bd...@wikimedia.org.au publicoffi...@wikimedia.org.au  
 Committee member and Public Officer, Wikimedia Australia Inc.
   Active on English Wikipedia, Meta-Wiki, Wikiversity, and others.
[[User:Bduke]] is single user account with en:Wikipedia main account.

___
Wikimediaau-l mailing list
Wikimediaau-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaau-l

Re: [Wikimediaau-l] official wiki

[Brian Salter-Duke]

On Sun, Dec 13, 2009 at 11:15:35PM +1030, Karl Goetz wrote:
> On Sat, 12 Dec 2009 11:57:02 +1100
> Brian Salter-Duke  wrote:
> 
> > On Sat, Dec 12, 2009 at 11:09:58AM +1100, Peter Halasz wrote:
> > > So lock those specific pages. Have you ever used Wikipedia? Do you
> > > think it would exist if they were worried only about representation?
> > 
> > I will try to respond to this debate, wearing my hat as Public Officer
> > of WMAU later, but for now let me just say that our official wiki is
> > not like wikipedia. It is much more like:
> 
> I assume this means this is your personal view?

It is my personal view but based on my experience as Public Officer
since the start of Wikimedia Australia. 
 
> >  http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Main_Page
> > 
> > As an incorporated association we have legal obligations to the
> > community via CAV, not only to the membership. This means the issue of
> 
> For those of us not in the know, what is CAV, and can you provide a
> reference to it for us to look at?

CAV is Consumer Affairs Victoria and is the body that administers our
incorporation. The general link is:-

http://www.consumer.vic.gov.au/

but you need to click on to look under Associations, Clubs & Fundraising 
and then to incorporated associations. It is not just incorporation. We
are a legal entitity. We now have approval to fund raise in Victoria. We
have an ABN. We will be applying for deductible gift recipient (DGR)
status. I will give a more thought through response to the question of
access later when I have woken up properly.

Brian.

> > access is not simple and it requires thought.  There is also a real
> 
> Not simple on the backend? I assume whatever sits behind the login
> process is able to automatically remove people who didn't pay (ldap?
> sql?). If thats the case its also easy to work out who should be in
> certain edit groups: they have valid memberships or not.
> 
> > tension here, not only about access. For example, there is also a
> > tension between the project's love of anonymity for users, with the
> > legal requirements imposed by incorporating.
> 
> Aye. Its entirely possible annon edits will not be a possibility. That
> doesn't mean that only members should be able to edit though.
> kk
> 
> > Cheers, Brian.
> >  
> 
> 
> -- 
> Karl Goetz, (Kamping_Kaiser / VK5FOSS)
> Debian contributor / gNewSense Maintainer
> http://www.kgoetz.id.au
> No, I won't join your social networking group



-- 
Brian Salter-Duke bd...@wikimedia.org.au publicoffi...@wikimedia.org.au  
 Committee member and Public Officer, Wikimedia Australia Inc.
   Active on English Wikipedia, Meta-Wiki, Wikiversity, and others.
[[User:Bduke]] is single user account with en:Wikipedia main account.

___
Wikimediaau-l mailing list
Wikimediaau-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaau-l

Re: [Wikimediaau-l] Official Wiki

[Karl Goetz]

On Sun, 13 Dec 2009 20:45:40 +1100
Virtual Steve  wrote:

> 
> As the new treasurer of the Wiki-Aus I have been reading this
> discussion with some interest and I now make the following comment.

Congrats on your election then!

> I am in support of Sarah's continual point that only financial
> members should be able to edit the official wiki for many reasons,
> however the below snippet from Andrew's comment is particularly
> useful and valid. Quite frankly folks the committee members of this
> chapter already have absolutely far too many things to read - to the
> extent that there is a very great chance that we will come awash with
> the excess of that information (and indeed there are clear instances
> where we have already).  

I've moved the comment for context.

> > *Andrew comment sent Saturday, 12 December 2009 9:38 AM
> > 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?

So _don't_ make this the committees job!

> Adding to that situation with open editing of the official wiki is
> neither practical nor reflective of real world boards, and quite
> frankly we are a real world board with real world responsibilities as
> a part of corporate governance requirements. In a nutshell we are

Which is nice, but not relevant to the website structure.

> responsible in the main to the financial members of this chapter and
> it is only their material that should take any more of our time or
> effort at the the official chapter pages.

How much extra effort will be required to police the site if it uses
confirmed logins instead of ip based editing?

> There are plenty of ways to draw our attention to issues of concern
> at other open wikis and so I for one do not support open editing in
> any form.

Getting your attention may not be the only reason to edit the site ...
kk

-- 
Karl Goetz, (Kamping_Kaiser / VK5FOSS)
Debian contributor / gNewSense Maintainer
http://www.kgoetz.id.au
No, I won't join your social networking group


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
___
Wikimediaau-l mailing list
Wikimediaau-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaau-l

Re: [Wikimediaau-l] official wiki

[Karl Goetz]

On Sat, 12 Dec 2009 11:57:02 +1100
Brian Salter-Duke  wrote:

> On Sat, Dec 12, 2009 at 11:09:58AM +1100, Peter Halasz wrote:
> > So lock those specific pages. Have you ever used Wikipedia? Do you
> > think it would exist if they were worried only about representation?
> 
> I will try to respond to this debate, wearing my hat as Public Officer
> of WMAU later, but for now let me just say that our official wiki is
> not like wikipedia. It is much more like:

I assume this means this is your personal view?

>  http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Main_Page
> 
> As an incorporated association we have legal obligations to the
> community via CAV, not only to the membership. This means the issue of

For those of us not in the know, what is CAV, and can you provide a
reference to it for us to look at?

> access is not simple and it requires thought.  There is also a real

Not simple on the backend? I assume whatever sits behind the login
process is able to automatically remove people who didn't pay (ldap?
sql?). If thats the case its also easy to work out who should be in
certain edit groups: they have valid memberships or not.

> tension here, not only about access. For example, there is also a
> tension between the project's love of anonymity for users, with the
> legal requirements imposed by imcorporating.

Aye. Its entirely possible annon edits will not be a possibility. That
doesn't mean that only members should be able to edit though.
kk

> Cheers, Brian.
>  


-- 
Karl Goetz, (Kamping_Kaiser / VK5FOSS)
Debian contributor / gNewSense Maintainer
http://www.kgoetz.id.au
No, I won't join your social networking group


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
___
Wikimediaau-l mailing list
Wikimediaau-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaau-l

Re: [Wikimediaau-l] official wiki

[Karl Goetz]

On Sat, 12 Dec 2009 10:15:56 +1100
Peter Halasz  wrote:

> 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

2b. Enable rss on recent changes, and people can look whenever they
want and load up a browser if fixes need to be made.

(trim other options)

> Peter Halasz.
> User:Pengo
> (Lapsed member)

kk (also Lapsed).

-- 
Karl Goetz, (Kamping_Kaiser / VK5FOSS)
Debian contributor / gNewSense Maintainer
http://www.kgoetz.id.au
No, I won't join your social networking group


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
___
Wikimediaau-l mailing list
Wikimediaau-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaau-l

Re: [Wikimediaau-l] official wiki

[Karl Goetz]

On Sun, 13 Dec 2009 16:44:09 +1000
"Craig Franklin"  wrote:


> Perhaps a compromise between the "no access for non-members" and "open
> access" viewpoints is in order.  We could open access to everyone,
> provided they had an account.  Accounts would still need to be
> approved by someone to weed out spam bots and the like (having
> managed a public-facing Wiki, I know that this is often a serious

There are public block lists for mediawiki sites available to help with
such things are there not?

> problem), and perhaps the accounts of non-members could be
> sequestered into the user space or something.  If you look at
> Wikimedia UK's "Recent Changes" page, there is a lot of rubbish there
> that their admins are having to spend their time cleaning up -
> frankly I think our people have better things to do than play janitor
> on the chapter wiki.

Surely its possible to let anyone do the cleaning up? I've seen it said
several times that it would be the committees job. Sounds like
something 4-5 people should be selected to do as part of the
(potential) opening up process.

> I don't know, apart from the whole "open philosophy", I don't see any
> real reasons why anyone who is not a member would want to post on our
> Wiki, and the fact that the Billabong is quiet. I don't really see
> that as a problem since most of the communication and discussion
> occurs on this list, which is essentially open to the public anyway.

Someone else replied to this, so I'll go with 'what they said'.

> Cheers,
> 
> Craig

I've replied to the following email inline as well.

> From: wikimediaau-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org
> [mailto:wikimediaau-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Andrew
> Sent: Saturday, 12 December 2009 9:38 AM
> To: Wikimedia-au
> Subject: 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

Hopefully we can all agree on this and take it into account.

> 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

'similar organisations' Meaning NGOs? NFPs? *wiki groups? ...?

> 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.

That sounds distinctly un-community-like to me. For an industry group
(Something like http://sage-au.org.au/display/SAGEAU/Home ) I can
undestand that. For a group ostensibly trying to promote wiki it seems
distinctly counter to the groups aim.

> 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

Did you mean "... those we seek to build partnerships with, *if they
see vandalism*, or "... those we seek to build partnerships with, if
they see our website is editable".

> world of free culture, edginess seems like a good thing, but in the

edginess? Not sure I follow.

> 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

It doesn't mean you have to (try and) be a business.
What "Random chaos" are you envisaging, if vandalism isn't considered a
major problem (hopefully not misquoting you there).

> 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

They shouldn't. Thats what other members should be doing.

> circumstances is an imposition on them and a completely unnecessary

Agreed.

> one - what do we stand to benefit from it, as against the costs?

Thats what we are trying to work out :)
kk

> cheers
> Andrew


-- 
Karl Goetz, (Kamping_Kaiser / VK5FOSS)
Debian contributor / gNewSense Maintainer
http://www.kgoetz.id.au
No, I won't join your social networking group


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
___
Wikimediaau-l mailing list
Wikimediaau-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaau-l

[Wikimediaau-l] Official Wiki

[Virtual Steve]

As the new treasurer of the Wiki-Aus I have been reading this discussion with 
some interest and I now make the following comment.

I am in support of Sarah's continual point that only financial members should 
be able to edit the official wiki for many reasons,
however the below snippet from Andrew's comment is particularly useful and 
valid.
 
Quite frankly folks the committee members of this chapter already have 
absolutely far too many things to read - 
to the extent that there is a very great chance that we will come awash with 
the excess of that information 
(and indeed there are clear instances where we have already).  

Adding to that situation with open editing of the official wiki is neither 
practical nor reflective of real world boards,
and quite frankly we are a real world board with real world responsibilities as 
a part of corporate governance requirements.
In a nutshell we are responsible in the main to the financial members of this 
chapter and 
it is only their material that should take any more of our time or effort at 
the the official chapter pages.

There are plenty of ways to draw our attention to issues of concern at other 
open wikis and 
so I for one do not support open editing in any form.

> *Andrew comment sent Saturday, 12 December 2009 9:38 AM
> 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?
  
_
Use Messenger in your Hotmail inbox Find out how
http://windowslive.ninemsn.com.au/hotmail/article/823454/web-im-for-hotmail-is-here___
Wikimediaau-l mailing list
Wikimediaau-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaau-l

Re: [Wikimediaau-l] official wiki

[Andrew]

PM, things are decided on Wikimedia Australia by committee, not consensus -
this isn't Wikipedia. And I've had a few financial members write to me or
chat with me since this debate of sorts opened with concerns similar to
Craig's re observations on WM-UK - basically saying the committee members
would end up wasting their time dealing with silliness on the Wiki rather
than stuff we need to do to grow the chapter. As one said, and I think they
won't mind me quoting, "this is navel-gazing".

I have some other semi-related comments but I'll make a new thread for those
as I doubt too many are reading this one at this point.

cheers
Andrew

2009/12/13 private musings 

> Having open editing for accounts only sounds great to me :-)
> If this idea could gain consensus, and get done by christmas I think that
> would be wonderful :-)
> cheers,
> Peter,
> PM.
>
> On Sun, Dec 13, 2009 at 5:44 PM, Craig Franklin  wrote:
>
>>  I think that presenting editing access to the chapter wiki as a
>> “benefit” of membership is a bit silly really.  When I spruik membership to
>> potential members, “the ability to edit our wiki!” doesn’t even register on
>> the things I tell them.
>>
>>
>>
>> Perhaps a compromise between the “no access for non-members” and “open
>> access” viewpoints is in order.  We could open access to everyone, provided
>> they had an account.  Accounts would still need to be approved by someone to
>> weed out spam bots and the like (having managed a public-facing Wiki, I know
>> that this is often a serious problem), and perhaps the accounts of
>> non-members could be sequestered into the user space or something.  If you
>> look at Wikimedia UK’s “Recent Changes” page, there is a lot of rubbish
>> there that their admins are having to spend their time cleaning up – frankly
>> I think our people have better things to do than play janitor on the chapter
>> wiki.
>>
>>
>>
>> I don’t know, apart from the whole “open philosophy”, I don’t see any real
>> reasons why anyone who is not a member would want to post on our Wiki, and
>> the fact that the Billabong is quiet… I don’t really see that as a problem
>> since most of the communication and discussion occurs on this list, which is
>> essentially open to the public anyway.
>>
>>
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Craig
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* wikimediaau-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:
>> wikimediaau-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] *On Behalf Of *Andrew
>> *Sent:* Saturday, 12 December 2009 9:38 AM
>> *To:* Wikimedia-au
>> *Subject:* 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 
>>
>> Sarah,
>>
>> The only actual reason you've given for not opening up the wiki to
>> non

Re: [Wikimediaau-l] official wiki

[private musings]

Having open editing for accounts only sounds great to me :-)
If this idea could gain consensus, and get done by christmas I think that
would be wonderful :-)
cheers,
Peter,
PM.

On Sun, Dec 13, 2009 at 5:44 PM, Craig Franklin  wrote:

>  I think that presenting editing access to the chapter wiki as a “benefit”
> of membership is a bit silly really.  When I spruik membership to potential
> members, “the ability to edit our wiki!” doesn’t even register on the things
> I tell them.
>
>
>
> Perhaps a compromise between the “no access for non-members” and “open
> access” viewpoints is in order.  We could open access to everyone, provided
> they had an account.  Accounts would still need to be approved by someone to
> weed out spam bots and the like (having managed a public-facing Wiki, I know
> that this is often a serious problem), and perhaps the accounts of
> non-members could be sequestered into the user space or something.  If you
> look at Wikimedia UK’s “Recent Changes” page, there is a lot of rubbish
> there that their admins are having to spend their time cleaning up – frankly
> I think our people have better things to do than play janitor on the chapter
> wiki.
>
>
>
> I don’t know, apart from the whole “open philosophy”, I don’t see any real
> reasons why anyone who is not a member would want to post on our Wiki, and
> the fact that the Billabong is quiet… I don’t really see that as a problem
> since most of the communication and discussion occurs on this list, which is
> essentially open to the public anyway.
>
>
>
> Cheers,
>
> Craig
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* wikimediaau-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:
> wikimediaau-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] *On Behalf Of *Andrew
> *Sent:* Saturday, 12 December 2009 9:38 AM
> *To:* Wikimedia-au
> *Subject:* 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 
>
> 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

Re: [Wikimediaau-l] official wiki

[Craig Franklin]

I think that presenting editing access to the chapter wiki as a "benefit" of
membership is a bit silly really.  When I spruik membership to potential
members, "the ability to edit our wiki!" doesn't even register on the things
I tell them.

 

Perhaps a compromise between the "no access for non-members" and "open
access" viewpoints is in order.  We could open access to everyone, provided
they had an account.  Accounts would still need to be approved by someone to
weed out spam bots and the like (having managed a public-facing Wiki, I know
that this is often a serious problem), and perhaps the accounts of
non-members could be sequestered into the user space or something.  If you
look at Wikimedia UK's "Recent Changes" page, there is a lot of rubbish
there that their admins are having to spend their time cleaning up - frankly
I think our people have better things to do than play janitor on the chapter
wiki.

 

I don't know, apart from the whole "open philosophy", I don't see any real
reasons why anyone who is not a member would want to post on our Wiki, and
the fact that the Billabong is quiet. I don't really see that as a problem
since most of the communication and discussion occurs on this list, which is
essentially open to the public anyway.

 

Cheers,

Craig

 

 

From: wikimediaau-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org
[mailto:wikimediaau-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Andrew
Sent: Saturday, 12 December 2009 9:38 AM
To: Wikimedia-au
Subject: 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 

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

[Gnangarra]

2009/12/12 Liam Wyatt 

> 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
> cooler " as an example of the
> kind of active conversations that I think the Chapter should be hosting on
> our "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.
>


Umm I'm a non-member, well past member who is no longer financial and
believe my editing status has been changed




>
> 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  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
>
>


-- 
GN.
http://gnangarra.redbubble.com/
___
Wikimediaau-l mailing list
Wikimediaau-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaau-l

Re: [Wikimediaau-l] official wiki

[Brian Salter-Duke]

On Sat, Dec 12, 2009 at 11:09:58AM +1100, Peter Halasz wrote:
> So lock those specific pages. Have you ever used Wikipedia? Do you
> think it would exist if they were worried only about representation?

I will try to respond to this debate, wearing my hat as Public Officer
of WMAU later, but for now let me just say that our official wiki is
not like wikipedia. It is much more like:

 http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Main_Page

As an incorporated association we have legal obligations to the
community via CAV, not only to the membership. This means the issue of
access is not simple and it requires thought.  There is also a real
tension here, not only about access. For example, there is also a
tension between the project's love of anonymity for users, with the
legal requirements imposed by imcorporating.

Cheers, Brian.
 
> ___
> Wikimediaau-l mailing list
> Wikimediaau-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaau-l

-- 
Brian Salter-Duke bd...@wikimedia.org.au publicoffi...@wikimedia.org.au  
 Committee member and Public Officer, Wikimedia Australia Inc.
   Active on English Wikipedia, Meta-Wiki, Wikiversity, and others.
[[User:Bduke]] is single user account with en:Wikipedia main account.

___
Wikimediaau-l mailing list
Wikimediaau-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaau-l

Re: [Wikimediaau-l] official wiki

[Liam Wyatt]

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
cooler"
as an example of the kind of active conversations that I think the Chapter
should be hosting on our "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  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

Re: [Wikimediaau-l] official wiki

[Angela]

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]

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

[Peter Halasz]

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

[Peter Halasz]

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

[Andrew]

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 

> 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  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 
> >>
> >> 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

[Peter Halasz]

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  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 
>>
>> 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

Re: [Wikimediaau-l] official wiki

[Peter Halasz]

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  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

[Andrew]

(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 

> 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 
>
> 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

[Andrew]

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 

> 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

[Peter Halasz]

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

Re: [Wikimediaau-l] official wiki

[private musings]

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  wrote:

> On Fri, Dec 11, 2009 at 3:27 PM, Sarah Ewart  wrote:
>
>>
>> On Sat, Dec 12, 2009 at 2:01 AM, Gnangarra  wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> 2009/12/11 Liam Wyatt 
>>>
 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 
> 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 minutes,
> donation , 
> constitution...
> but because it allows editing by default anyone can contribute to "
> volunteer " and "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 
> Frenchand
> German  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

Re: [Wikimediaau-l] official wiki

[Liam Wyatt]

On Fri, Dec 11, 2009 at 3:27 PM, Sarah Ewart  wrote:

>
> On Sat, Dec 12, 2009 at 2:01 AM, Gnangarra  wrote:
>
>>
>> 2009/12/11 Liam Wyatt 
>>
>>> 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
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 minutes,
donation ,
constitution...
but because it allows editing by default anyone can contribute to
"volunteer"
and "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
Frenchand
German  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

Re: [Wikimediaau-l] official wiki

[Sarah Ewart]

Just to clarify my previous email, when I said: "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." The Chapters wiki I was referring to
was not our wiki but the Chapters wiki on the Wikimedia Switzerland domain
and used by the chapters to organise and discuss the two chapters seats on
the WMF board. http://chapters.wikimedia.ch/Main_Page Though I see our site
as closer to the Foundation's own wiki wikimediafoundation.org in that it
contains information like minutes, resolutions, reports, rules and such that
need to be maintained with integrity.



On Sat, Dec 12, 2009 at 2:27 AM, Sarah Ewart  wrote:

>
>
> On Sat, Dec 12, 2009 at 2:01 AM, Gnangarra  wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> 2009/12/11 Liam Wyatt 
>>
>>> 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.
>
>
>>
>>
>>
>>  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 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.
>
>
>
>>
>> By all means place restrictions on what non-members can do but remember
>> Wikimedia-au is judged by what its does and dont expect others to do what
>> Wikimedia-au isnt willing to do itself.
>>
>> Wikimedia-au long term future rests on whether it can grow its membership
>> over the next year, to do that its needs to be "of value" it needs to be
>> doing things to create that value, importantly it needs to be seen to be
>> doing them. People arent going to be productive in the group if there is
>> nothing for them to productive with, they arent going continue with a group
>> if they dont have a voice in that group,  and they definitely wont join a
>> group if they cant first experience the group and meet some of the people
>> already there.
>>
>>
>> Gnangarra
>> http://gnangarra.redbubble.com/
>>
>> ___
>> 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

[Sarah Ewart]

On Sat, Dec 12, 2009 at 2:01 AM, Gnangarra  wrote:

>
>
> 2009/12/11 Liam Wyatt 
>
>> 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.


>
>
>
>  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 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.



>
> By all means place restrictions on what non-members can do but remember
> Wikimedia-au is judged by what its does and dont expect others to do what
> Wikimedia-au isnt willing to do itself.
>
> Wikimedia-au long term future rests on whether it can grow its membership
> over the next year, to do that its needs to be "of value" it needs to be
> doing things to create that value, importantly it needs to be seen to be
> doing them. People arent going to be productive in the group if there is
> nothing for them to productive with, they arent going continue with a group
> if they dont have a voice in that group,  and they definitely wont join a
> group if they cant first experience the group and meet some of the people
> already there.
>
>
> Gnangarra
> http://gnangarra.redbubble.com/
>
> ___
> 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

[Gnangarra]

2009/12/11 Liam Wyatt 

> 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




>
> 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
>
>
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.

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.

By all means place restrictions on what non-members can do but remember
Wikimedia-au is judged by what its does and dont expect others to do what
Wikimedia-au isnt willing to do itself.

Wikimedia-au long term future rests on whether it can grow its membership
over the next year, to do that its needs to be "of value" it needs to be
doing things to create that value, importantly it needs to be seen to be
doing them. People arent going to be productive in the group if there is
nothing for them to productive with, they arent going continue with a group
if they dont have a voice in that group,  and they definitely wont join a
group if they cant first experience the group and meet some of the people
already there.


Gnangarra
http://gnangarra.redbubble.com/
___
Wikimediaau-l mailing list
Wikimediaau-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaau-l

Re: [Wikimediaau-l] official wiki

[Andrew]

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 

> 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
> allows IP editing (though not on
> the mainpage) whilst the other English language chapter (NYC) focuses their
> attention on the meta-wiki 
> page(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 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  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 
>>>
>>> Yes it is possible to edit it, for details:
 " To edit the navigation menu on the left, edit
 [[MediaWiki:Sidebar]] using its special syntax. For more details, see
 ."

 ___
 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
>>
>

Re: [Wikimediaau-l] official wiki

[Liam Wyatt]

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
allows IP editing (though not on the
mainpage) whilst the other English language chapter (NYC) focuses their
attention on the meta-wiki
page(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  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  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 
>>
>> Yes it is possible to edit it, for details:
>>> " To edit the navigation menu on the left, edit
>>> [[MediaWiki:Sidebar]] using its special syntax. For more details, see
>>> ."
>>>
>>> ___
>>> 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

[Sarah Ewart]

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  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 
>
> Yes it is possible to edit it, for details:
>> " To edit the navigation menu on the left, edit
>> [[MediaWiki:Sidebar]] using its special syntax. For more details, see
>> ."
>>
>> ___
>> 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

Re: [Wikimediaau-l] official wiki

[Andrew]

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 

> Yes it is possible to edit it, for details:
> " To edit the navigation menu on the left, edit
> [[MediaWiki:Sidebar]] using its special syntax. For more details, see
> ."
>
> ___
> 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

[K. Peachey]

Yes it is possible to edit it, for details:
" To edit the navigation menu on the left, edit
[[MediaWiki:Sidebar]] using its special syntax. For more details, see
."

___
Wikimediaau-l mailing list
Wikimediaau-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaau-l

[Wikimediaau-l] official wiki

[private musings]

Just wondering if it's possible to edit the left hand side menu at all?
See http://wikimedia.org.au/wiki/Talk:Billabong - I think it's probably
better not to prominently link to areas which aren't currently in use. I'm
actually quite curious as to how the left hand menu is in fact created - is
it editable in some clever way that I'm unaware of, or is it all clever and
complicated?
I'm sort of going through the wiki trying to make sure it's in good shape,
so check 'recent changes' for more :-)
best to all,
Peter,
PM.
___
Wikimediaau-l mailing list
Wikimediaau-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaau-l