Agree to disagree. As far as per-page ACL what else makes sense in the User space? Additionally many other wiki software packages offer per-page ACL so clearly a lot of people don't see per-page access control as being incompatible with the idea of wiki. Yes there are other tools, but those tools are not Mediawiki (Extension like the Semantic Mediawiki and now Cargo I have never seen with other software tools) Many people, as measured by extensions, desire access control and don't see it as incompatible with the idea of a wiki or Mediawiki. (Personally I find the SemanticACL extension to be great when I want to restrict access on a per-page basis)
I would agree with you that per-page ACL is incompatible with a wiki if the "default" position was to change to restricted access on all pages. But this not what anyone is seeking. All the best to you. On Tue, Jan 27, 2015 at 6:30 PM, Chad <innocentkil...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Tue Jan 27 2015 at 6:17:35 PM chris tharp <tharpena...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > Chad -- why would Mediawiki be the wrong tool if someone wanted to > exercise > > some form of access control? Considering the number of extensions that > have > > created for different types of access control it seems to be a very > popular > > desire. Just because someone desires access control doesn't mean that > they > > don't want the wiki experience elsewhere in their website -- they just > > don't want it on every page. > > > There's lots of extensions. Doesn't mean they're all good ideas ;-) Wikis > are meant to be open and all pages in a namespace should be equal. > When they're not, that's what protection is for. > > > > (Implicitly Mediawiki developers agree with > > this philosophy since all Mediawiki Namespace pages on every wiki have > > access control). > > > Sure, per-namespace edit permissions make sense. Because not all > namespaces are equal. NS_MEDIAWIKI can damage the site so it's > restricted by default. I totally could respect an argument for a wiki > protected NS_TEMPLATE or NS_MODULE in the same manner. > > > > Strangely the only type of access control build into > > Mediawiki is a top-down centralized type of access control, which is > > strange when you think about it. Everyone agrees some type of access > > control needs to build into the software, but Mediawiki, out of the > > package, only allows a top-down centralized approach. Others just want > more > > varied types of access control than the off-the-shelf model presented > > inside a standard Mediawiki. > > > > > Sure, access controls make sense for different actions or namespaces > (see above). I just think per-page ACLs are incompatible with the idea of > a wiki and there are other tools better suited for the job. > > -Chad > _______________________________________________ > MediaWiki-l mailing list > To unsubscribe, go to: > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/mediawiki-l > _______________________________________________ MediaWiki-l mailing list To unsubscribe, go to: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/mediawiki-l
