Re: Advocacy wiki

On Thu, Jul 26, 2007 at 04:24:11PM -0700, Jim Nasby wrote:
> On Jul 25, 2007, at 7:20 PM, Marc G. Fournier wrote:
> >- --On Wednesday, July 25, 2007 18:12:50 -0700 Jim Nasby
> ><decibel(at)decibel(dot)org>
> >wrote:
> >
> >I'd like to move the developer wiki to it own VPS, and out of the core
> >developer one, just to save against potential 'web based security
> >holes' ...
> >would it be an idea ot setup a seperate 'advocacy wiki', along the
> >lines of
> >what you are suggesting (with suitable moderation / review) from
> >the developer
> >one, which would remian closed?
>
> Perhaps we should stop drawing the line at "developer" and "advocacy"
> and just have one wiki that's open to public edits and one that's not.

Just file me in the group that don't want a publically-editable wiki at all
;-)
Apart from that, I don't think we need more than one wiki. Two wikis is
twice the maintenance effort, for very little gain. Better to structure one
of them to deal with both sets of content.

> >And, do you have the time / energy to actually moderate such a
> >beast ... I
> >think one of the bigger fears is ppl uploading mis-information into
> >such an
> >"official wiki", and I think that fear is fairly justified with the
> >amount of
> >spam-bots going around filling in forms left-right-and-center ...
>
> If it's dependent on a single person to keep it clean, we're doing
> something wrong. :)

Yeah, you never looked at the docs comment sbefore, did you? There was
whole team of people supposed to keep taht clean, and we had *thousands* of
spam and support questions in there. The rate was at least 3 junk for every
one good.

Now we require a login (that it's really easy to sign up for), and spam is
down to pretty much zero and the good-to-bad ratio is *much* better.

Bottom line: in theory it works fine, but I doubt it'll work in practice.
It's been proven not to before.

//Magnus