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 <thepmacco...@gmail.com> > 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 >> 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 >> >> > > _______________________________________________ > 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