Re: [pgsql-advocacy] We need an Advocacy wiki - Mailing list pgsql-www

From Decibel!
Subject Re: [pgsql-advocacy] We need an Advocacy wiki
Date
Msg-id 20070804172833.GO25704@nasby.net
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [pgsql-advocacy] We need an Advocacy wiki  (Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net>)
Responses Re: [pgsql-advocacy] We need an Advocacy wiki
Re: [pgsql-advocacy] We need an Advocacy wiki
List pgsql-www
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
> >> agree with Greg, we shouldn't need a second one. Can't we have an area
> >> on the current one with looser permissions?
> >
> > I think this is being blown way out of proportion.
> >
> > 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.
>
> Correct. There's still some, but it's much better now.
>
>
> > 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.
>
> 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?
--
Decibel!, aka Jim Nasby                        decibel@decibel.org
EnterpriseDB      http://enterprisedb.com      512.569.9461 (cell)

pgsql-www by date:

Previous
From: Magnus Hagander
Date:
Subject: Re: [pgsql-advocacy] We need an Advocacy wiki
Next
From: Magnus Hagander
Date:
Subject: Re: [pgsql-advocacy] We need an Advocacy wiki