Received: from localhost (maia-3.hub.org [200.46.204.184])
	by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 99BAF9FB993;
	Sat,  4 Aug 2007 14:39:00 -0300 (ADT)
Received: from postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71])
	by localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.204.184]) (amavisd-maia, port 10024)
	with ESMTP id 11954-01; Sat,  4 Aug 2007 14:38:55 -0300 (ADT)
X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.5
X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.5
X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.5
Received: from svr2.hagander.net (svr2.hagander.net [88.198.128.226])
	by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 49CF29FB802;
	Sat,  4 Aug 2007 14:38:57 -0300 (ADT)
Received: from dynamic.hagander.net ([127.0.0.1]) (encrypted and
	authenticated) by svr2.hagander.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id
	9DDE7DCC421; Sat,  4 Aug 2007 19:38:55 +0200 (CEST)
Message-ID: <46B4B9C8.1090200@hagander.net>
Date: Sat, 04 Aug 2007 19:39:20 +0200
From: Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (Windows/20070728)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "Decibel!" <decibel@decibel.org>
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
References: <a5b9f5a05b5dd032d31c3185669fb093@biglumber.com>
	<200708041020.36108.xzilla@users.sourceforge.net>
	<46B4980C.5040700@postgresql.org>
	<20070804164457.GH25704@nasby.net> <46B4B624.70700@hagander.net>
	<20070804172833.GO25704@nasby.net>
In-Reply-To: <20070804172833.GO25704@nasby.net>
X-Enigmail-Version: 0.95.2
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1
X-Archive-Number: 200708/51
X-Sequence-Number: 12292

Decibel! wrote:
>> 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?

I'd say we want email verification, so that we can contact the authors
when needed.

That said, I have no clue about mediawiki ;-)

//Magnus