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
