(Note that my comments above are addressed to a hypothetical situation of
open editing, not the current situation which is manageable by any objective
standard.)

2009/12/12 Andrew <orderinchao...@gmail.com>

> At the end of the day, and I think this is a point that isn't well
> understood because we have a foot on both sides of the border, this is the
> official wiki for a non profit organisation. The wiki's set up in such a way
> that those that are willing to support the aims of the organisation can edit
> freely. I don't know of any other similar organisations which offer open
> editing or participation - one I know that runs meetings for its members
> (and this is just networking!) charges $10 for non-members to attend a
> meeting; another runs closed email lists that non-members can't even see.
>
> As for the argument re vandalism - that isn't even our biggest prospective
> problem. The biggest is actually misrepresentation - the risk that we will
> be discredited as an organisation in the eyes of those we seek to build
> partnerships with. In the relatively insular world of free culture, edginess
> seems like a good thing, but in the real world, quite apart from our legal
> and other obligations with CAV, we have to deal with businesses, large
> organisations, governments, NGOs and the like. We're competing for their
> attention with more professional outfits which can offer them something.
> We're asking them to give us something - which requires a standard of
> credibility and professionalism. If random chaos is unfolding on our
> official website (and that is what it is), we have a bit of a problem in
> that area. Expecting already busy committee members (and I'm not even
> speaking for myself here) to monitor the wiki in such circumstances is an
> imposition on them and a completely unnecessary one - what do we stand to
> benefit from it, as against the costs?
>
> cheers
> Andrew
>
> 2009/12/12 Peter Halasz <qub...@gmail.com>
>
> Sarah,
>>
>> The only actual reason you've given for not opening up the wiki to
>> non-members is because of fear of vandalism.
>>
>> Ok, so we have a problem: Potential vandalism.
>>
>> Solutions?
>>
>> 1. Actually observe actual vandalism before locking anything down.
>> 2. Assign a couple of people to patrolling recent changes once a week
>> 3. Locking individual pages when we require their integrity to be
>> preserved.
>> 4. Requiring wiki users to sign in
>> 5. Requiring new wiki users to wait 3 days before editing
>> 6. Banning everyone but paid members, who, after paying their
>> membership, can apply for an account, which, when it expires, is no
>> longer allowed to edit.
>>
>> C'mon, seriously? You went with #6? To combat vandalism?
>>
>> Although, as you say, we CAN keep the wiki locked up, why SHOULD we?
>> And why with such tight control?
>>
>> Peter Halasz.
>> User:Pengo
>> (Lapsed member)
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Wikimediaau-l mailing list
>> Wikimediaau-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaau-l
>>
>
>
_______________________________________________
Wikimediaau-l mailing list
Wikimediaau-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaau-l

Reply via email to