Received: from localhost (maia-1.hub.org [200.46.204.191]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 115079FA5DC; Sun, 5 Aug 2007 05:12:04 -0300 (ADT) Received: from postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.204.191]) (amavisd-maia, port 10024) with ESMTP id 76220-10; Sun, 5 Aug 2007 05:12:00 -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 service-web.de (p15093784.pureserver.info [217.160.106.224]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C4E7D9FA299; Sun, 5 Aug 2007 05:12:00 -0300 (ADT) Received: from [192.168.178.22] (p548B2C79.dip0.t-ipconnect.de [84.139.44.121]) by service-web.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id EB7BBE80FE; Sun, 5 Aug 2007 10:11:57 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <46B58646.30109@wildenhain.de> Date: Sun, 05 Aug 2007 10:11:50 +0200 From: Tino Wildenhain User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.12 (Windows/20070509) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Magnus Hagander Cc: "Decibel!" , Dave Page , Robert Treat , pgsql-advocacy@postgresql.org, Greg Sabino Mullane , pgsql-www@postgresql.org Subject: Re: [pgsql-advocacy] We need an Advocacy wiki References: <200708041020.36108.xzilla@users.sourceforge.net> <46B4980C.5040700@postgresql.org> <20070804164457.GH25704@nasby.net> <46B4B624.70700@hagander.net> In-Reply-To: <46B4B624.70700@hagander.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1 X-Archive-Number: 200708/77 X-Sequence-Number: 12318 Magnus Hagander schrieb: ... > 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. > > >> Can we please just give the public wiki a chance instead of coming up >> with a bunch of reasons it won't work before we've even tried? It's not >> like it's hard to change things later if needed. >> >> (BTW, when I say public wiki I mean one where anyone with an account can >> edit, not one where you don't need an account.) > > 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) Maybe the users could be created by referral or invitation? This way you would form a little web of trust instead of having almost alien people (or bots) trying to write something related to postgres. Regards Tino