FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
» Video Reviews

» Linux Archive

Linux-archive is a website aiming to archive linux email lists and to make them easily accessible for linux users/developers.


» Sponsor

» Partners

» Sponsor

Go Back   Linux Archive > CentOS > CentOS Docs

 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
 
Old 05-19-2008, 12:01 PM
"Daniel de Kok"
 
Default Opening of the Wiki - Part I

On Mon, May 19, 2008 at 1:53 PM, Karanbir Singh <mail-lists@karan.org> wrote:
> Akemi Yagi wrote:
>>
>> http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos-docs/2007-October/000734.html
>> As you can see in that thread, placing a moderator's name on each page
>> was opposed by a few core members of the CentOS team. Then the
>> discussion sort of died down. I'd like to know, if the name(s) are
>> hidden from the readers, assigning maintainers would be agreeable to
>> them. Any more thoughts or ideas?
>
> I dont understand why someone's name needs to be on the page, for them to be
> able to subscribe to the changelog for a page ?

I agree. I still agree with myself one year ago:

"I can only agree. Even it is not the intention to keep people away,
people will feel like they have to consult with the author on every
edit. This works against the goal of wikis: providing complete, correct,
and understandable information."

I know that you are not proposing to have visible names, but I think
the same thing applies to "ownership" that is shown when a page is
edited. Other than that, page subscriptions should do the job fine?

And why can't the editors be responsible for all of the Wiki? I think
it is better if abuse is fixed by the first person who spots it,
rather than a special moderator.

I can't really see what purpose this proposal serves .

Take care,
Daniel
_______________________________________________
CentOS-docs mailing list
CentOS-docs@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-docs
 
Old 05-19-2008, 12:05 PM
Ralph Angenendt
 
Default Opening of the Wiki - Part I

Daniel de Kok wrote:
> I agree. I still agree with myself one year ago:
>
> "I can only agree.

You seem to be a very agreeable person.

SCNR, really.

Cheers,

Ralph
_______________________________________________
CentOS-docs mailing list
CentOS-docs@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-docs
 
Old 05-19-2008, 12:11 PM
"Daniel de Kok"
 
Default Opening of the Wiki - Part I

On Mon, May 19, 2008 at 2:05 PM, Ralph Angenendt <ra+centos@br-online.de> wrote:
> Daniel de Kok wrote:
>> I agree. I still agree with myself one year ago:
>>
>> "I can only agree.
>
> You seem to be a very agreeable person.
>
> SCNR, really.

Sniff. At least I can hide behind my non-nativeness .

-- Daniel
_______________________________________________
CentOS-docs mailing list
CentOS-docs@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-docs
 
Old 05-19-2008, 02:43 PM
"Akemi Yagi"
 
Default Opening of the Wiki - Part I

On Mon, May 19, 2008 at 4:53 AM, Karanbir Singh <mail-lists@karan.org> wrote:
> Akemi Yagi wrote:
>>
>> http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos-docs/2007-October/000734.html
>> As you can see in that thread, placing a moderator's name on each page
>> was opposed by a few core members of the CentOS team. Then the
>> discussion sort of died down. I'd like to know, if the name(s) are
>> hidden from the readers, assigning maintainers would be agreeable to
>> them. Any more thoughts or ideas?
>
> I dont understand why someone's name needs to be on the page, for them to be
> able to subscribe to the changelog for a page ?

I fully explained why in that thread. However, I am not asking the
same question in the current topic. I referred to the other thread
because the subject is *related* to assigning a moderator(s) to wiki
pages and some discussion took place in there.

Akemi
_______________________________________________
CentOS-docs mailing list
CentOS-docs@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-docs
 
Old 05-19-2008, 02:59 PM
"Akemi Yagi"
 
Default Opening of the Wiki - Part I

On Mon, May 19, 2008 at 5:01 AM, Daniel de Kok <me@danieldk.org> wrote:

> I know that you are not proposing to have visible names, but I think
> the same thing applies to "ownership" that is shown when a page is
> edited. Other than that, page subscriptions should do the job fine?
>
> And why can't the editors be responsible for all of the Wiki? I think
> it is better if abuse is fixed by the first person who spots it,
> rather than a special moderator.
>
> I can't really see what purpose this proposal serves .

Because I did not do a good job of asking my question using correct
words :-D English is not my native language (excuses, excuses).

First of all, I am not talking about things like spam and abuse. As I
mentioned in my reply to Ralph's question, the editorial team must
take care of these problems. In other words, everyone monitors every
page.

My question is concerned with the *contents* of wiki articles.
Suppose the original author or the current "maintainer" says, "I want
to keep this page under good control by limiting edit rights to
designated people", how would we respond? We can say, "Sorry, you are
against the goal of the Wiki. You cannot do that". Or, we can assign
him/her as the "moderator" of that page and let him be the primary
contact (internal only, the name not visible to general readers).

Hope I described my question/point better this time. :-)

Akemi
_______________________________________________
CentOS-docs mailing list
CentOS-docs@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-docs
 
Old 05-19-2008, 03:05 PM
"Akemi Yagi"
 
Default Opening of the Wiki - Part I

On Mon, May 19, 2008 at 5:05 AM, Ralph Angenendt <ra+centos@br-online.de> wrote:
> Daniel de Kok wrote:
>> I agree. I still agree with myself one year ago:
>>
>> "I can only agree.
>
> You seem to be a very agreeable person.

I agree that Daniel is a very agreeable person provided the word
'disagree' is regarded as a family of 'agree'. Do you agree?

SCNR #2

Akemi
P.S. #1 - by definition I am now the most agreeable person.
P.S. #2 - this kind of posting usually belongs to Jim Perrin.
Evolution, you are not subscribed to this list?
_______________________________________________
CentOS-docs mailing list
CentOS-docs@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-docs
 
Old 05-19-2008, 03:40 PM
Karanbir Singh
 
Default Opening of the Wiki - Part I

Akemi Yagi wrote:

First of all, I am not talking about things like spam and abuse. As I
mentioned in my reply to Ralph's question, the editorial team must
take care of these problems. In other words, everyone monitors every
page.
... Not only for spam, but as Ralph already pointed out, also got
content and guidelines on content, perhaps even layout and linking...
the editorial team will be responsible for complete editorial process.
And hopefully there will be enough technical people in the team to also
be able to help and guide contributors along.



My question is concerned with the *contents* of wiki articles.
Suppose the original author or the current "maintainer" says, "I want
to keep this page under good control by limiting edit rights to
designated people", how would we respond? We can say, "Sorry, you are
against the goal of the Wiki. You cannot do that". Or, we can assign
him/her as the "moderator" of that page and let him be the primary
contact (internal only, the name not visible to general readers).


Whatever is the overall policy of the wiki, is what will be the policy
for the pages included in there. If someone does not want edits being
made to his/her pages - they can revoke those edits with a reason and if
the Editorial team think its unfair - they can redo the changes.


Also, I think we are shaving yak's here. There is a functional changelog
feed that people can subscribe to, and they should.




--
Karanbir Singh : http://www.karan.org/ : 2522219@icq
_______________________________________________
CentOS-docs mailing list
CentOS-docs@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-docs
 
Old 05-19-2008, 03:41 PM
Ned Slider
 
Default Opening of the Wiki - Part I

Akemi Yagi wrote:

On Mon, May 19, 2008 at 5:01 AM, Daniel de Kok <me@danieldk.org> wrote:


I know that you are not proposing to have visible names, but I think
the same thing applies to "ownership" that is shown when a page is
edited. Other than that, page subscriptions should do the job fine?

And why can't the editors be responsible for all of the Wiki? I think
it is better if abuse is fixed by the first person who spots it,
rather than a special moderator.

I can't really see what purpose this proposal serves .


Because I did not do a good job of asking my question using correct
words :-D English is not my native language (excuses, excuses).

First of all, I am not talking about things like spam and abuse. As I
mentioned in my reply to Ralph's question, the editorial team must
take care of these problems. In other words, everyone monitors every
page.

My question is concerned with the *contents* of wiki articles.
Suppose the original author or the current "maintainer" says, "I want
to keep this page under good control by limiting edit rights to
designated people", how would we respond? We can say, "Sorry, you are
against the goal of the Wiki. You cannot do that". Or, we can assign
him/her as the "moderator" of that page and let him be the primary
contact (internal only, the name not visible to general readers).

Hope I described my question/point better this time. :-)

Akemi


For me, the second scenario is more or less what we have at present, and
the first scenario is what we are proposing moving towards?


Again, I am in favour of moving towards a more open Wiki. I believe it
sits better within the philosophy of an open source project and is in
keeping with the spirit of the creative commons license that
contributions are published under. I can't see how a half-way solution
would work, for me it's either one or the other. It makes little sense
to me to have some pages open and others restricted.


As a matter of courtesy, it would be nice if contributors posted to this
list before making substantial contributions and/or changes, but minor
edits should require nothing more than registering an account and making
the edit IMHO.


Ned
_______________________________________________
CentOS-docs mailing list
CentOS-docs@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-docs
 
Old 05-19-2008, 04:15 PM
Nick Sklavenitis
 
Default Opening of the Wiki - Part I

On Mon, 2008-05-19 at 16:41 +0100, Ned Slider wrote:

> As a matter of courtesy, it would be nice if contributors posted to this
> list before making substantial contributions and/or changes, but minor
> edits should require nothing more than registering an account and making
> the edit IMHO.
>
> Ned


I tend to agree since requiring an account to actually post then
moderators can approve the accounts. In other words allow posting to be
done for first time users and if they are actually posting something
valid approve for future posting, If said account is posting about
MEDS / Enlarments...blah you get the point delete no questions asked.
Very simple since im actually using this feature on my own website,
although it's drupal and not what centos wiki is using.

_______________________________________________
CentOS-docs mailing list
CentOS-docs@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-docs
 
Old 05-19-2008, 04:24 PM
R P Herrold
 
Default Opening of the Wiki - Part I

On Mon, 19 May 2008, Daniel de Kok wrote:

I dont understand why someone's name needs to be on the
page, for them to be able to subscribe to the changelog for
a page ?


I concur that subscribing to changes should be open to all
known site registrants -- but
such notification subscriptions have NEVER worked for me,
despite a couple debugging attempts, so, who knows if it is
really useful.



I agree. I still agree with myself one year ago:


subscribe to the Changelog is orthogonal to edit rights (the
seeming topic of your quoted prior post) -- what are you
agreeing to?


"I can only agree. Even it is not the intention to keep
people away, people will feel like they have to consult with
the author on every edit. This works against the goal of
wikis: providing complete, correct, and understandable
information."


1. attributed work is more likely to have _someone_ take a
pride of authorship (or at least an interest in not letting
stale or inaccurate content remain), than an anonymous work.


Is there disagreement with this assertion?

2. As an example of such 'signing' of content, see the the
Java page is the product of two authors, and one half has
disappeared; I'd rather distance myself from the bottom half
[it is a moving target, and cannot remain fresh, and I have no
inceitive to maintain it, as I do not follow that approach,
but ... I *do* test and use the top method daily], BUT some
readers seem to find the 'jpackage' half somewhat useful. As
such, I do NOT simply cut off the bottom.


As a side note, I regularly get private inquiries about the
bottom half, anyway, and respond to them, anyway.


And why can't the editors be responsible for all of the
Wiki? I think it is better if abuse is fixed by the first
person who spots it, rather than a special moderator.


I think the reason not to leage it solely to the 'editors' is
that task is too big, it would not get done in a timely
fashion, and one gives up the benefit of a 'front line'
"subscribed" reviewer is the counter-argument; I 'watch'
certain pages of the Wikipedia, and amend 'hijackings' from
time to time in covered pages.


my $0.02, and I have no strong feelings here ...

-- Russ herrold
_______________________________________________
CentOS-docs mailing list
CentOS-docs@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-docs
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 12:28 PM.

VBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2007, Crawlability, Inc.
Copyright 2007 - 2008, www.linux-archive.org