(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 <[email protected]> > 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 <[email protected]> > > 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 >> [email protected] >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaau-l >> > >
_______________________________________________ Wikimediaau-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaau-l
