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

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.

> 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)

//Magnus