incubator-ooo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Simon Phipps <si...@webmink.com>
Subject Re: Access to wiki
Date Thu, 04 Aug 2011 14:01:01 GMT

On 4 Aug 2011, at 14:56, Rob Weir wrote:

> On Thu, Aug 4, 2011 at 7:29 AM, TerryE <ooo@ellisons.org.uk> wrote:
>> On 04/08/11 11:31, Jean Weber wrote:
>>> 
>>> <snip>
>>>>> 
>>>>> 2) Alternatively, or in addition, the first X edits/ contributions/
>>>>> whatever are moderated by a group of people, any one of whom can approve
>>>>> or reject the items. After X acceptable contributions, the person is
>>>>> then allowed to edit the wiki without further supervision -- until or
>>>>> unless they start posting inappropriate material such as spam. Again,
>>>>> very few spammers will take the trouble to post some useful info before
>>>>> going into spam mode.
>>>>> 
>>>>> These methods deal with the vast majority, if not all, of the concerns
I
>>>>> have seen Rob expressing about systems with no control at all, but at
>>>>> the same time they do not require more time or commitment on the
>>>>> contributors' part to be authorised to participate.
>>>>> 
>>>>> AFAIK, most wikis&   similar sites provide some way to limit the
editing
>>>>> of specific pages to a smaller group of people (admins or whatever).
>>>>> 
>>>> <snip>
>>> 
>>> You probably know more about this than I do, but my understanding is that
>>> the current OOo wiki has an extension installed that does what I was
>>> suggesting in option 2, but the extension has not been implemented.  See:
>>> http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:FlaggedRevs and specifically:
>>> 
>>> http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:FlaggedRevs#Automatic_user_promotion
>>> 
>> Jean
>> 
>> Yes, you are correct.  This is extension can do this and more, but with a
>> grey issue like this I feel that a DL based dialogue isn't the best way to
>> work out what to do here.  Better we work up a position paper/page within
>> the OOOUSERS cwiki laying down the options, their pros and cons and then
>> agree a consensus or vote either on the paper itself.  Use the DL to note
>> the consensus and get wider feedback.
>> 
>> What concerns me is the moderation load involved with such an active
>> intervention of review-before-publish.  Perhaps others with moderator
>> experience might care to comment?
>> 
> 
> The general approach at Apache is to grant trust once merit has been
> shown.  So we should be liberal in granting additional rights to
> contributors who make consistent, high quality contributions.  If
> moderation is a bottleneck then it shows that we're not distributing
> power efficiently.

Given Jean's next paragraph, how would a potential contributor be able to establish that reputation?


> 
>> My worry is that review-before-publish also ignores the reality of how
>> people edit wikis.  In general they don't prepare and proof draft offline
>> then paste their best and final into the article.  Most do it section by
>> section or end up correcting / rewording when they see the final version, so
>> one logical edit can comprise half a dozen posts.  I am not sure how this
>> would work if you've got to wait for approval before the next edit.
>> 
>> We also still need the quality checks: does the email exist, who is she/he,
>> etc. and I am not sure how we could include these in an automaic bump.
>> 
>> Terry
>> 
>>> --Jean
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>> 


Mime
View raw message