On Mon, Dec 14, 2009 at 02:05:42PM +1100, Liam Wyatt wrote:
> It seems there are a variety of arguments that have now been put forward
> against opening up editing to non-members:
> 
> * "It's a member benefit" - I think we all agree that this is no longer held
> as a valid claim. IIRC this was the SOLE reason why we didn't have open
> editing to start with, but no matter.

I agree.
 
> * "There'll be lots of vandalism" - This has been responded to with the
> proposal that only logged-in editing be allowed and some form of
> CAPTCHA/email confirmation be used to stop spambots.

Still a pain, like the spam on the mailing list.
 
> * "We need to keep the official pages stable" - The official pages (rules,
> minutes, donation info...) can be easily locked from editing in just the
> same way that the copyright notice page on Wikipedia is locked. We could
> even use some form of flagged-revs if we chose.

It is more than stable. Some, like minutes, must never change. Soem,
like rules, need a general meeting to change them. The process is quite
different from most wikis.

> * "It will look bad to our potential partner organisations" - I have heard
> many criticisms or complaints from external organisations/professionals
> about Wikimedia/Wikipedia/Wikimedia-Australia and none of them have been
> about the potential for unruly discussion on the chapter wiki. If an
> organisation is unwilling to work with the Chapter on the basis that there
> might be some disucssion on the wiki that they don't like, then they've
> obviously never heard of Wikipedia. Many organisations have some form of
> public discussion section on their website (e.g. comments on company blogs)
> and this does not meant that people think less of the company.

Right now they probably do not know about our wiki. I am certainly not
saying that they will consciously say they are "unwilling to work with
the Chapter on the basis that there might be some discussion on the wiki
that they don't like". I would say that they may get put off if they get
the impression that our wiki is not professional about who and what we
are. They might not recognise why they are being put off.
 
> If we hope to get more grassroots involvement in the chapter then IMO we
> cannot force people to pay $40 and register an account before they can
> engage in chapter activities. Volunteers should not be forced to pay money
> to volunteer. 

I agree.

> Any organisation that choses not to associate itself with WM-Au on the
> basis that we operate a wiki that members of the general public can
> edit is more than likely not ready to work with an organisation that
> promotes free-culture at all. 

See above.

> And, just like on WP, we can indeed include layers of locks or tags
> that indicate 'this page is official policy' or 'this page is for
> general discussion'.

It is not like WP. WP policies can be changed by consensus so we can
have edit wars on policy pages. Much of our stuff can only be changed by
either the committee or a General Meeting (Annual or Special). That is
why I say that for these pages we have to lock down and explain with a
tag.

Maybe we should move stuff that is not wiki-editable to a non-wiki web
site on the same server. We can give links to it from the wiki. That
would make it clear that it is fixed approved stuff. It would free up
the wiki to be like a wiki. At present most of it is not like a wiki. 

Brian.

> -Liam
> 
> 
> wittylama.com/blog
> Peace, love & metadata
> 
> 
> On Mon, Dec 14, 2009 at 11:21 AM, Brian Salter-Duke
> <b_d...@bigpond.net.au>wrote:
> 
> > There has been a lot of discussion about the official wiki and who
> > should be able to edit it. This is in response to the whole debate, so I
> > have not kept any other comments.
> >
> > This wiki is the official wiki. It is how we present ourselves, not just
> > to members, but to prospective members, to regulatory bodies, to Glam
> > institutions who we hope to work with, with a range of other bodies and
> > with the general public.
> >
> > It is the only place where our rules are displayed, where minutes of
> > general and committee meetings are recorded, and a host of other
> > official stuff. We are incorporated. We are a legal entity.  We now
> > have approval to fund raise in Victoria. We need to apply for fund
> > raising approval to all other States and Territories, except the NT. We
> > have an ABN. We will be applying for deductible gift recipient (DGR)
> > status. All this has to be reflected in our official pages.
> >
> > We are trying hard to relate in a professional manner with a large range
> > of GLAM institutions across the country. They will look to our official
> > wiki for reliable information about us. They will judge how serious we
> > are by how professional we present ourselves.
> >
> > The issue is not really about vandalism, but the integrity and
> > professionalism of the whole official wiki. Vandalism with certainly
> > destroy that, but so will edits that discuss ideas that are not
> > officially approved, and edits that are inappropriate. If readers find
> > information that they find to be inaccurate or inappropriate, they will
> > conclude that we are not a serious professional body that they can work
> > with, and they may doubt the accuracy of material on what are clearly
> > official pages.
> >
> > This does not mean that we have to restrict editing to the committee,
> > but we have to make sure that integrity and professionalism is preserved
> > and indeed enhanced. It is not just a question of removing vandalism.
> > There are some pages that must never be allowed to be vandalised. Karl
> > has suggested that the committee does not need to be involved in
> > removing vandalism, but this misses the point. Certainly non-committee
> > members can assist with improving and preserving the wiki, but the
> > committee has to be involved. That is what the committee is elected for.
> > The committee is responsible for the integrity and professionalism of
> > our official presentation outside the association.
> >
> > As a wikimedian, of course I am in favour of opening up the wiki as much
> > as we can, but as a member of the committee and as Public Officer
> > responsible for reporting on our work to Consumer Affairs Victoria, I am
> > very conscious of the responsibility to preserve the integrity and
> > professionalism of the official wiki. If we decide to open it up, we
> > must be quite open about what we are doing. We can not just protect some
> > pages, or restrict editing of some pages to certain groups. We must be
> > clear to the readers.
> >
> > I therefore propose that all pages be clearly tagged with a statement of
> > their status. Pages of rules, minutes, etc. should be tagged with
> > something like "This page is an official page of Wikimedia Australia
> > Inc. and is approved by the association. Editing is restricted to
> > members of the committee". Other pages might be tagged with something
> > like "This page is for the development of ideas by members and supports.
> > Editing is open to all. The page does not necessarily reflect the
> > official views of Wikimedia Australia Inc." We might have a whole series
> > of different tags. The idea is that the reader will not be mislead about
> > our official views and will be quite clear where authentic information
> > is to be found. The committee, because it is responsible, must have the
> > total right to tag any page on the wiki with the first tag above and to
> > restrict editing of that page to the committee. There can be no debate
> > about this. The committee is responsible.
> >
> > Of course these tags will be criticised as being ugly, but to me they
> > are essential. I can only support opening up editing on the official
> > wiki, if we do clearly tag all articles to make their status absolutely
> > clear.
> >
> > Cheers, Brian.
> >
> > --
> > Brian Salter-Duke bd...@wikimedia.org.au publicoffi...@wikimedia.org.au
> >     Committee member and Public Officer, Wikimedia Australia Inc.
> >   Active on English Wikipedia, Meta-Wiki, Wikiversity, and others.
> > [[User:Bduke]] is single user account with en:Wikipedia main account.
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimediaau-l mailing list
> > Wikimediaau-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaau-l
> >

-- 
Brian Salter-Duke bd...@wikimedia.org.au publicoffi...@wikimedia.org.au  
     Committee member and Public Officer, Wikimedia Australia Inc.
   Active on English Wikipedia, Meta-Wiki, Wikiversity, and others.
[[User:Bduke]] is single user account with en:Wikipedia main account.

_______________________________________________
Wikimediaau-l mailing list
Wikimediaau-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaau-l

Reply via email to