On Sun, 13 Dec 2009 16:44:09 +1000 "Craig Franklin" <[email protected]> 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: [email protected] > [mailto:[email protected]] 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 [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaau-l
