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 <cr...@halo-17.net> 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 <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 > Wikimediaauemail@example.com > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaau-l > > > > _______________________________________________ > Wikimediaau-l mailing list > Wikimediaaufirstname.lastname@example.org > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaau-l > >
_______________________________________________ Wikimediaau-l mailing list Wikimediaauemail@example.com https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaau-l