Message-ID: <46B4980C.5040700@postgresql.org>
Date: Sat, 04 Aug 2007 16:15:24 +0100
From: Dave Page <dpage@postgresql.org>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.12 (Windows/20070509)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Robert Treat <xzilla@users.sourceforge.net>
CC: pgsql-advocacy@postgresql.org, Greg Sabino Mullane <greg@turnstep.com>,
	pgsql-www@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: [pgsql-advocacy] We need an Advocacy wiki
References: <a5b9f5a05b5dd032d31c3185669fb093@biglumber.com>
	<200708041020.36108.xzilla@users.sourceforge.net>
In-Reply-To: <200708041020.36108.xzilla@users.sourceforge.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Robert Treat wrote:
> On Saturday 04 August 2007 09:56, Greg Sabino Mullane wrote:
>> but opening it up to anyone is
>> generally a bad idea unless, like Wikipedia, you a) are willing to put up
>> with vandalism and general subtle mischief and b) have the critical mass of
>> watchers to keep (a) to a minimum. The experience of the interactive docs
>> indicate that we do not have that mass yet, 
> 
> What experience is this?

I imagine he's referring to the mountain of garbage that used to build 
up until Magnus and I had a monster session moderating a few thousand 
comments to get them back under control.

>> and I am reluctant to go that 
>> route anyway for public-facing pages that represent the project via a
>> postgresql.org address.

I don't see any need to have any public facing pages on a Wiki - are we 
too lazy to write things up for the website when we want to present them 
to the world? It's not like it's difficult to do.

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?

/D