On Thu, 2011-08-04 at 15:01 +0100, Simon Phipps wrote: > On 4 Aug 2011, at 14:56, Rob Weir wrote: > > > On Thu, Aug 4, 2011 at 7:29 AM, TerryE <[email protected]> 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.
Just for the record, the "next paragraph" in the quoted material above was not mine, but Terry's. --Jean > >> > >> Terry > >> > >>> --Jean > >>> > >>> > >> > >> >
