Dave,
> I realise the PostgreSQL project is not the same as Vale Housing, but
> still, the same considerations must be made to some extent.
Not really. It's easy enough for us to add a legal disclaimer to the Wiki
template. Beyond that, we're an unincorporated OSS association.
> LOL!! So because it hasn't happened yet, it never will (or won't to us)?
> Besides, a quick Google shows that Wiki defacements are hardly unheard
> of, even if they can be rolled back.
Sure. What I'm pointing out is that the defacements are not at a level which
hampers the use of Wikis.
> Reading your pros and cons, the only *real* advantage of a Wiki over
> some other CMS is that the would be editor/author needn't register to
> use the system first. Given that registering for such a site and waiting
> for a return email is likely to be more or less instant,
But it's not on Bricolage: registration of a new author needs to be done
manually by an adiministrator. The workflow and permissions are too complex
otherwise.
> and only
> required upon the first use, I would rather use just one system for the
> whole site,
That's a powerful argument, though.
>and know that we do at least have a valid email address for
> each editor on the system (who would have had to agree to T&Cs upon
> registration).
I don't think we can enforce T&C, since there is no entity to enforce them.
> 1) Only one content management system to maintain etc.
>
> 2) The liability for any unsuitable postings is placed firmly back at
> the editors themselves.
Both valid.
We can compromise, here, though, you realize. What if we got Bric up and
running, and then let the admins of the Bric site decide, after some use,
whether a Wiki was called for? At that time, it would be more concrete and
less speculative.
--
-Josh Berkus
Aglio Database Solutions
San Francisco
