What about extending the wiki...?
Bill Maltby, LFS Organizational
bill at nospam.dot
Sat Mar 13 03:47:57 PST 2004
On Sat, 13 Mar 2004, Jeroen Coumans wrote:
> Kevin P. Fleming said the following on 03/12/04 20:31:
> > Anderson Lizardo wrote:
> > I know that sounds promising, but it scares me a bit. That's one reason
> > I've never really like Wiki systems that much, because I never had any
> > level of confidence that I could trust what I was reading.
> At least with PHPWiki, an admin can be assigned who can lock pages so
> they can no longer be freely edited. We could share the admin-account
> with all registered LFS-ers. A finer granularity of access control is
There is *at least* one registered LFSer with whom I wish to *not* share
*any* account. And there is another of whom I would be leery.
At a time when security concerns are becoming constantly more important,
I have difficulty buying into that concept at all.
> Also, your concerns have long been addressed by Wiki community though,
> see <http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?WhyWikiWorks>. We have a strong, friendly
> and helpful community. The regular website has 1.5 million hits per
> month, excluding the mirrors. Any vandalism should be immediately
> noticed, and because a Wiki has a very low barrier for editing anyone
> can fix it by retrieving an old version. Like I said before, I want to
> run at least a test with an open system, to see how well the community
> manages itself.
Surely you jest? The results on a test site will not be indicative of
the results of a "live" system. Secondly, it has been well demonstrated
among the small group of editors that they can not even manage
themselves. The project has recently been adversely affected by symptoms
of paranoia, apathy, excessive ego, arbitrary disregard for the primary
goals (as I understand them), a decreasing level of participation by
some of the long-time valued contributors (doe to the other symptoms)
and general degradation of the quality of the LFS experience.
> Should the vandalism become too much a burden we can
> lock it down a bit.
It's not vandalism that concerns me ATM, although that would fall into
the range of my concerns.
> You can compare it with the mailinglists - they have been run very
> succesfully completely open, low-barrier and community-managed.
And *highly* inefficient due to the lack of use of the search function.
Just this week again I saw many posts requesting information that had
been previously discussed. Not one responder directed the folks to use
Now we would invite the people who do not research before posting
(including an editor) to arbitrarily update the contents of our pages?
> Unfortunately due to a global problem (ie. spam & windows ^H^H^H^H^
> viruses) we have to make the entry barrier a bit higher. The same can be
> done with the Wiki if the need arises.
The need exists already.
Use fixed above line to mail me direct
More information about the website