Date: Sat, 4 Aug 2007 12:28:33 -0500
From: Decibel! <decibel@decibel.org>
To: Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net>
Cc: Dave Page <dpage@postgresql.org>,
	Robert Treat <xzilla@users.sourceforge.net>, pgsql-advocacy@postgresql.org,
	Greg Sabino Mullane <greg@turnstep.com>, pgsql-www@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: [pgsql-advocacy] We need an Advocacy wiki
Message-ID: <20070804172833.GO25704@nasby.net>
References: <a5b9f5a05b5dd032d31c3185669fb093@biglumber.com>
	<200708041020.36108.xzilla@users.sourceforge.net>
	<46B4980C.5040700@postgresql.org>
	<20070804164457.GH25704@nasby.net> <46B4B624.70700@hagander.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1;
	protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="BPjCafsbA2ap7OrL"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <46B4B624.70700@hagander.net>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.13 (2006-08-11)


--BPjCafsbA2ap7OrL
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

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=
=20
> >> agree with Greg, we shouldn't need a second one. Can't we have an area=
=20
> >> on the current one with looser permissions?
> >=20
> > I think this is being blown way out of proportion.
> >=20
> > 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.
>=20
> Correct. There's still some, but it's much better now.
>=20
>=20
> > 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.
>=20
> 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?
--=20
Decibel!, aka Jim Nasby                        decibel@decibel.org
EnterpriseDB      http://enterprisedb.com      512.569.9461 (cell)

--BPjCafsbA2ap7OrL
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Disposition: inline

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.3 (FreeBSD)

iD8DBQFGtLdBdO30qud8SkgRAr3xAJ9TkqVLnq/0LLwUruE4qCn/vqKHwACg2Nq9
pD6XBTDwC73Y/JTGD3KjbRY=
=Qarp
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--BPjCafsbA2ap7OrL--