public inbox for [email protected]
help / color / mirror / Atom feedFrom: Decibel! <[email protected]>
To: Magnus Hagander <[email protected]>
Cc: Dave Page <[email protected]>
Cc: Robert Treat <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected]
Cc: Greg Sabino Mullane <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [pgsql-advocacy] We need an Advocacy wiki
Date: Sat, 4 Aug 2007 12:28:33 -0500
Message-ID: <[email protected]> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]>
<[email protected]>
<[email protected]>
<[email protected]>
<[email protected]>
On Sat, Aug 04, 2007 at 07:23:48PM +0200, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> Decibel! wrote:
> > On Sat, Aug 04, 2007 at 04:15:24PM +0100, Dave Page wrote:
> >> For collaboration work however, the Wiki is important I think - but I
> >> agree with Greg, we shouldn't need a second one. Can't we have an area
> >> on the current one with looser permissions?
> >
> > I think this is being blown way out of proportion.
> >
> > We're not wikipedia. We have nowhere near the attention level, nor the
> > type of content that's likely to attract vandals. And before someone
> > brings up the doc comments, there hasn't appeared to be much of a flood
> > of garbage there since we instituted the login requirement.
>
> Correct. There's still some, but it's much better now.
>
>
> > It's also completely unfair to try and correlate keeping an open wiki
> > clean with doing the same for docs, because unlike docs we've got
> > hundreds of folks who could ensure that the wiki stays clean.
>
> Not sure that's a fair count. Looking at the wiki user list there are
> certainly 215 accounts. But by my untrained eye, a lot of those look
> like automated users created by spam-bots in order to see if they can
> create spam-pages. It could be that we have actual users named Zy9Yqd,
> Yx9Qbh and Xj0Y6g, but I seriously doubt it. And that's a clear
> indication that there are people (or rather, bots) probing the wiki
> already trying to post crap.
Well, my point is that if we allow our users to easily get accounts,
we'll have a lot of eyes on this...
> As long as that holds, I'm absolutely up for giving it a try. Maybe part
> of the disagreement has been from a misunderstanding of what a "public
> wiki" is. In my book, a *public* wiki is one that doesn't need a
> verified account. (I assume that you refer to verified account above. If
> not, I don't agree until you add the word verified)
Well, at the bare minimum we need a captcha or something similar.
Without that then yes, we're going to get all kinds of crap accounts.
Do we just have that turned off, or does mediawiki actually not support
that?
--
Decibel!, aka Jim Nasby [email protected]
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com 512.569.9461 (cell)
view thread (74+ messages) latest in thread
reply
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: [email protected]
Cc: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]
Subject: Re: [pgsql-advocacy] We need an Advocacy wiki
In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by agora; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox