RE: [Issue] External links @ the wiki, aka pagechange wars
-Original Message- From: Webmaster [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] After you read the article, how could you possibly say that it is spam? Well, the page does try to load javascript content from 4 external sites... Fortunately, my browser's NoScript extension blocks them all. Why do you need all that extra javascript on a simple text page? Is it advertising, by any chance? Would you be getting paid for it? It *smells* a wee bit spammy to me... Rgds, Owen Boyle Disclaimer: Any disclaimer attached to this message may be ignored. This message is for the named person's use only. It may contain confidential, proprietary or legally privileged information. No confidentiality or privilege is waived or lost by any mistransmission. If you receive this message in error, please notify the sender urgently and then immediately delete the message and any copies of it from your system. Please also immediately destroy any hardcopies of the message. You must not, directly or indirectly, use, disclose, distribute, print, or copy any part of this message if you are not the intended recipient. The sender's company reserves the right to monitor all e-mail communications through their networks. Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender, except where the message states otherwise and the sender is authorised to state them to be the views of the sender's company.
RE: [Issue] External links @ the wiki, aka pagechange wars
-Original Message- From: Webmaster [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, May 24, 2007 10:16 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; 'Rich Bowen'; dev@httpd.apache.org Cc: 'Apache Infrastructure' Subject: RE: [Issue] External links @ the wiki, aka pagechange wars Hello, I've never used this list so bear with me, I couldn't get docs-help to send me help.Its nice to know Apache has so many helpful people willing to discuss this situation, [etc.. etc..] It's funny, a user called Produke has been doing exactly the same thing on WikiPedia (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_HTTP_status_codes) and his links have been removed *and* he puts them right back up again... Oddly, this other guy has had a eerily familiar conversation with wikipedia admins on the subject...(see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Produke) Rgds, Owen Boyle Disclaimer: Any disclaimer attached to this message may be ignored. This message is for the named person's use only. It may contain confidential, proprietary or legally privileged information. No confidentiality or privilege is waived or lost by any mistransmission. If you receive this message in error, please notify the sender urgently and then immediately delete the message and any copies of it from your system. Please also immediately destroy any hardcopies of the message. You must not, directly or indirectly, use, disclose, distribute, print, or copy any part of this message if you are not the intended recipient. The sender's company reserves the right to monitor all e-mail communications through their networks. Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender, except where the message states otherwise and the sender is authorised to state them to be the views of the sender's company.
Re: [Issue] External links @ the wiki, aka pagechange wars
On 5/23/07, William A. Rowe, Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: We have a serious issue to determine, and I've asked for a 48 hour cooldown of wiki.apache.org/httpd/ to make a decision, and in the meantime asked that the wiki become read-only for the conclusion of this decision. [ ] Our httpd wiki is open to external resources for httpd. [ ] External httpd resources are prohibited. I mean this explicitly, obviously a link to MS/Sun/RedHat about their specific platform would be genuinely useful and relevant. I'm asking about askapache's external links, which have not been actually contributed to the foundation. And we've never presumed that pointers to external links are resources under the AL. AskApache and megaspaz decided to start a pagechange war tonight, but the first point is to decide if such external 'helpful pages' are welcome. If so, AskApache was in the right, if not, megaspaz is right. Either way, I immediately asked for infra to shutter the wiki to write access until this was resolved as a matter of POLICY. Once we determine a policy, I belive we owe megaspaz and AskApache a second chance once they are informed of the definative policy. Future wiki abuse would, of course, lead to account and IP blockage. But I believe at this moment both acted in best-faith without any guidance from our project, and we need to have policies so folks can be responsible wiki users. This isn't the end-all of all possibilities, but let's discuss for 2 days and reopen the wiki with a concrete policy? On 5/23/07, William A. Rowe, Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: We have a serious issue to determine, and I've asked for a 48 hour cooldown of wiki.apache.org/httpd/ to make a decision, and in the meantime asked that the wiki become read-only for the conclusion of this decision. [ ] Our httpd wiki is open to external resources for httpd. [ ] External httpd resources are prohibited. I mean this explicitly, obviously a link to MS/Sun/RedHat about their specific platform would be genuinely useful and relevant. I'm asking about askapache's external links, which have not been actually contributed to the foundation. And we've never presumed that pointers to external links are resources under the AL. AskApache and megaspaz decided to start a pagechange war tonight, but the first point is to decide if such external 'helpful pages' are welcome. If so, AskApache was in the right, if not, megaspaz is right. Either way, I immediately asked for infra to shutter the wiki to write access until this was resolved as a matter of POLICY. Once we determine a policy, I belive we owe megaspaz and AskApache a second chance once they are informed of the definative policy. Future wiki abuse would, of course, lead to account and IP blockage. But I believe at this moment both acted in best-faith without any guidance from our project, and we need to have policies so folks can be responsible wiki users. This isn't the end-all of all possibilities, but let's discuss for 2 days and reopen the wiki with a concrete policy? If a Wiki isn't open to community input ( where community here means *users*, not the typical Apache definition of community meaning the *committers*), then what is it for? Committers can already post to the project website itself, so they do not need any extra mechanism to describe things that might be interesting. Content from users, on the other hand, can be either solicited (in which case external links are perfectly ok) or censored (in which case nobody need bother ... they can publish their own links on their own blogs, and let Google help information seekers instead of the ASF helping them). In the Apache projects I'm involved with, the only thing we kick off of the wiki pages is spam. It's a wiki ... it's user contributed content, and not necessarily reflective of the opinions of the project's developers. But it is *incredibly* useful to the users of the software we build. Deal with that reality ... or close it down ... your choice. Bill
Re: [Issue] External links @ the wiki, aka pagechange wars
Paul Querna wrote: William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote: We have a serious issue to determine, and I've asked for a 48 hour cooldown of wiki.apache.org/httpd/ to make a decision, and in the meantime asked that the wiki become read-only for the conclusion of this decision. [XXX] Our httpd wiki is open to external resources for httpd. [ ] External httpd resources are prohibited. I mean this explicitly, obviously a link to MS/Sun/RedHat about their specific platform would be genuinely useful and relevant. I believe that Wikis must be able to link to external sites -- just like we do in the regular documentation. However, just like the the regular documentation, these links are generally restricted to Vendors, or other long standing and stable sites. (or... example.com) He has quoted the Apache wiki etiqutte guide, in his home page on the wiki. Wiki Eitquette -- http://wiki.apache.org/httpd/WikiCourse/BasicIntroduction/200_Wikiquette?action=printmedia=projection His wiki Home Page -- http://wiki.apache.org/httpd/AskApache In which he infers he is allowed to use external links to materials of his own choice. However the wiki-etiquette seems to be a standard set of pages shipped with MoinMoin, maybe they need reviewing for ASF application and either removing, or modifying accordingly. I believe we can look to wikipedia's linking policy as a good example of how to build a 'policy' that people can understand: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:External_links In this case: AdSense covered personal blogs especially from people who do not contribute in other mediums doesn't seem like a good place to be linking to. On the revision war: I don't like it; I do believe AskApache's link should be removed. I don't blame megaspaz, he was using the tools available, trying to communicate with AskApache that the link was unacceptable. The larger problem is that the AskApache person has never, AFAIK, made themselves known on the mailing list, or other mediums, making it impossible to communicate with them in other manners. AskApache has had several email conversations with both myself, and Rich. In which he was asked politely, but firmly to not use links to content on his site. Material such as his htaccess guide were at best misleading, as well the possibility of plagiarism. Sadly they do get very agressive when their material is modified or removed from the wiki, he has thus far refused to openly communicate with us, claiming ... we singled him out for abuse ... Megaspaz is a commited helper in #apache and I firmly believe he was doing his best to keep the wiki clean, and accurate. We have been lucky so far in that we have only had two spam posts, much less than was originally anticiapted. I find it very unfortunate that it has come to this, considering Rich and I struggled for quite some time to have the wiki created. When we first started using the wiki, the intention was for it to be a staging post for non docs comitters to submit works that can be then moved into the official docs project. It has now grown beyond my best expectations with lots of good content. As mentioned in a previous email to the docs list, this has now become the de facto FAQ, and is growing day on day. In fact we were highly praised by 3 or 4 individuals in #apache for the content, as it was accurate and helped them solve their issues with little fuss and with ease. This is testament to those of us who strive to make it so, and of the content in there. I have copies of these email conversations, and I am willing to forward them on to the appropriate people, rather than these lists as a whole. This gentleman has been a source of concern for sometime with some regulars in #apache. Reviewing some of his material leads us to conclude that he may have some very valuable input to the docs project, but the way in which he has handled the situation has been less than enthusiastic. Unfortunately there is no simple way, or for that matter a policy, of preventing him from accessing the wiki. He has already used 3 different user accounts to circumvent measures put in place. We could of course block his IP and delete hsi user account, but as we all know these are very easily circumvented anyway. On a policy: My opinion doesn't fit into a hard and fast rule, and rather relies upon discretion. -Paul - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Tony
Re: [Issue] External links @ the wiki, aka pagechange wars
Hi, On 5/24/07, Craig McClanahan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 5/23/07, William A. Rowe, Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: We have a serious issue to determine, and I've asked for a 48 hour cooldown of wiki.apache.org/httpd/ to make a decision, and in the meantime asked that the wiki become read-only for the conclusion of this decision. [ X ] Our httpd wiki is open to external resources for httpd. [ ] External httpd resources are prohibited. snip / If a Wiki isn't open to community input ( where community here means *users*, not the typical Apache definition of community meaning the *committers*), then what is it for? Committers can already post to I Agree with Craig. Yoav
Re: [Issue] External links @ the wiki, aka pagechange wars
Yoav Shapira wrote: Hi, On 5/24/07, Craig McClanahan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 5/23/07, William A. Rowe, Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: We have a serious issue to determine, and I've asked for a 48 hour cooldown of wiki.apache.org/httpd/ to make a decision, and in the meantime asked that the wiki become read-only for the conclusion of this decision. [ X ] Our httpd wiki is open to external resources for httpd. [ ] External httpd resources are prohibited. snip / If a Wiki isn't open to community input ( where community here means *users*, not the typical Apache definition of community meaning the *committers*), then what is it for? Committers can already post to I Agree with Craig. ditto. Derby has a Uses of Derby wiki page [1] and an articles/tutorials/tips page [2] that we encourage users to update. It's fine for somebody to post a link to his/her own article (they are the ones who are likely to know about it in the first place). but methinks we should add a disclaimer to each page that says the derby project doesn't verify/endorse the information or products provided at any of those links. -jean [1] http://wiki.apache.org/db-derby/UsesOfDerby [2] http://wiki.apache.org/db-derby/WorkingWithDerby Yoav
Re: [Issue] External links @ the wiki, aka pagechange wars
Joshua Slive wrote: On 5/24/07, Rich Bowen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On May 24, 2007, at 04:23, Tony Stevenson wrote: AskApache has had several email conversations with both myself, and Rich. In which he was asked politely, but firmly to not use links to content on his site. NOTE: NOT because external links are bad, but because the articles to which he was linking were misleading, incorrect, and promoted sub- optimal solutions to common problems. The implied endorsement (The Apache docs link to this article, so it must be true) was unfortunate, and undesirable. Although I respect Bill's desire to have this solved apache-wide, I actually think that this case would have been better addressed in the closer confines of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Let's just address this particular case and not worry about the general issue for now. The Apache wiki is not some democratic exercise like wikipedia where we need to treat everyone equally. We are a meritocracy, not a democracy, even on the wiki. Certain people (like Rich) have earned the right to make final decisions about what should be on the wiki. AskApache has not earned that right. The content that he is adding is inappropriate (and violates my suggested policy) for many reasons. I suggest that someone email him and tell him that he is henceforth banned from: 1) Making any links to his personal site; and 2) Reverting any change made by someone else (even if that change is a reversion of his change). If he can't live with those rules, he can be banned for good. +1 Would it be possible to re-enable write access for known 'good guys' so we can continue the process maintaining the wiki? If you would like me to send this email (as someone who has not interacted with him before) I'd be fine with that (although I don't know his address). Josh, I am happy to send this mail too, as I already have a history with him. I am not sure he will react overly well with someone else 'wading in' to this. Joshua. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Tony
RE: [Issue] External links @ the wiki, aka pagechange wars
Hello, I've never used this list so bear with me, I couldn't get docs-help to send me help.Its nice to know Apache has so many helpful people willing to discuss this situation, but why do I get the feeling that none of you have actually read the page in question? Here is the link that is causing all the commotion: http://www.askapache.com/htaccess/apache-status-code-headers-errordocument.h tml I encourage you to read it and then you can understand my position. After you read the article, how could you possibly say that it is spam? That is perhaps the most relevant article I've ever seen about Apache ErrorDocuments and more specifically, HTTP Status Codes. Its the single, only place on the entire Internet where each of Apache's 57 Status Codes are listed. Its the only place on the Net where you can find the headers of each Apache ErrorDocument. Its the only article anywhere to have every single returned errordocument. I know because I did the work, I filled in the blanks on the Common_HTTPStatusCodes, I wrote it, and I published my findings to support open-source and Apache, and for the benefit of the entire net community. I actually did research on the external linking of sources or references on the Apache wiki, asf, many other apache wikis, and the link to my article is 100% compliant with the policies, but besides that it is a really fantastic article with 100% relevancy. 1. There is no copyright issue. 2. Its 100% relevant to the wiki article. 3. Its the ONLY place on the NET with that information. It is the authoritative link because its the original source. 4. Its a not-for-profit site. 5. The source that I used to fill in the many blanks on the Status Code table was my article, and since the article is incredibly lengthy a link to the original source is 100% warranted. 6. AskApache.com is registered for another 7 years, so these links are stable. 7. Have you even read the article? I once again find myself in a wiki battle of reverts, but I just don't have the patience or the time to be harassed every time I contribute to the wiki. Its supposed to be a place where new ideas and drafts can flourish, shutting people down who want to contribute is not cool. Calling me a spammer and calling my policy-compliant link spam is disingenuous and that rudeness and immaturity is NOT following the guidelines and policies of apache and asf. I have probably spent over 30 hours trying to contribute to the wiki, which I understood to be the trial area for working out new documentation. A work-in-progress where the point was shared collaboration. Unfortunately pctony and megaspaz have refused to let me post anything on the wiki.. It seems that every tip and suggestion I contribute immediately gets shot down as either being plagiarised, misleading and incorrect, or they just don't give me an excuse. I have literally spent hours writing a new wiki article in the ScratchPad area, and a few minutes after I posted it was immediately deleted. My stuff isn't discussed or improved upon or checked out, its just completely deleted. My email address is on my username page on the wiki, and I have emailed both pctony and megaspaz several times to try and get them to understand we are on the same team and the wiki isn't their personal feifdom. Look at my site, askapache.com. Its almost entirely dedicated to Apache httpd tips, tricks, etc.. I challenge pctony and megaspaz to stop deleting all my posts and instead show me how its wrong. Anyone who knows anything about Apache will immediately recognize my posts for being original, creative, and incredible resources for the whole web to enjoy for free. My billing is currently $125/hr, I am NOT trying to make any kind of profit from askapache.com, and to suggest my articles are spam is complete ludicrous. Anyone can shout slogans, I put the code up on the NET for everyone to discuss and improve. We are all like-minded here when it comes to Apache, so I hope we can rise above the emotional aspects of this issue and instead focus on making the wiki a more productive and friendly place for everyone who has ideas and is willing to donate their time and effort. -AskApache No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.467 / Virus Database: 269.7.7/816 - Release Date: 5/23/2007 3:59 PM
RE: [Issue] External links @ the wiki, aka pagechange wars
The trouble in this particular case is that the contributor in question writes articles that are misleading or completely wrong, and appears to be unaware of the fact that he is being misleading and wrong. I'm not sure if he's genuinely trying to be helpful, or merely trying to inflate his google ranking by creating pages that link back to his site. If I am misleading or wrong in any way shape or form than it is absolutely accidental. Instead of repeatedly telling me how bad my contributions are, and deleting anything I try to contribute, why not just point out WHERE I am wrong, WHERE I am misleading, that way we can work together and add valuable content to the wiki. Not to mention I can revise the articles on my blog, which means your feedback will be helping thousands of newbie Apache users. Either way, the content that he produces does not add substantial value, nor do the pages to which he links, and often his content actively promotes practices that are discouraged as being less-than-best-practice. I don't care if you are the top Apache Guru on the planet, the fact is that thousands of people DO think that my articles add substantial value, and if you really feel my stuff is that bad its your problem, not the content. Otherwise I would encourage you to make suggestions, point out errors, highlight alternatives, illustrate best-practices, instead of just talking about how bad my contributions are. Added to this is his refusal to accept correction, so that when his articles are modified to reflect best practice and reality, he gets offended and changes it back. Say whatever you want, I'm not going to argue when the evidence is online for everyone to examine. Go look at the wiki at my posting history, you will see how unfairly I have been treated. Behind the scenes there are angry and insulting email messages being exchanged, which I'm occasionally copied on, in which he defends his articles as being the best things ever written, and accusing us of singling him out for abuse. It's all very juvenile and time consuming. I believe I've written 3 people a total of 5 emails in the past 4 months. I saved everything so I don't have to argue or use sweeping generalizations, facts speak for themselves. I just don't understand all the unfriendliness and pettiness from 2 individuals since day 1 (look at my wiki history). In fact, one of the people actually went to my blog and left this kindhearted public comment. This is the most idiotic ‘tip’ I’ve ever read on the web since 1990 I am curious as to how you manage to generate technological content, you must be copying and pasting from different sources. Pleasant no? I feel like just because I posted some radical, new, and alternative ideas and solutions that might not have been discussed elsewhere before, people get a little competitive and want me to fall in line or something. I can already here the response: your stuff wasn't new or radical, it didn't solve anything, it was wrong, poorly written, and definately misleading. Why not respond like you are supposed to and actually SHOW me what is wrong, misleading, or poorly written? Isn't that what the wiki is for? How can we improve content when it just gets deleted right away? I don't have time to try to make a couple people like me.. thats silly, I go to the wiki to contribute, share ideas, and learn about my favorite software. I am only interested in being able to help and contribute to the wiki without immediately being deleted, reverted, and publically dissed both personally and academically. I understand how it could have gotten to this point, drama is always exciting, but the past is the past and I am just wanting to contribute. I've been trying for several months now, with month long breaks in-between, but I feel like if the people with grudges can't let it go, then I will never be able to contribute. Isn't there a policy or a guideline or someone with rank that can point the way to put this behind us? Teamwork makes the Dream Work No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.467 / Virus Database: 269.7.7/816 - Release Date: 5/23/2007 3:59 PM
Re: [Issue] External links @ the wiki, aka pagechange wars
On Thu, 24 May 2007 15:15:56 -0500 Webmaster [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hello, I've never used this list so bear with me, I couldn't get docs-help to send me help.Its nice to know Apache has so many helpful people willing to discuss this situation, but why do I get the feeling that none of you have actually read the page in question? Here is the link that is causing all the commotion: http://www.askapache.com/htaccess/apache-status-code-headers-errordocument.h tml I encourage you to read it and then you can understand my position. OK, I just looked. And to be brutal ... WTF The first error is to call them Apache Status Codes. That's a nasty one to perpetrate on innocent newbies, because it obscures what they really are, and misleads the reader. First sentence: There are a total of 57 HTTP Status Codes recognized by the Apache Web Server. Sorry, that's plain nonsense - though at least it describes them correctly. The article then suggests using any or all of them with Apache's Redirect. It does so without any attempt to explain the meaning of any of the status codes, so it cannot be said to add anything to Apache's default behaviour or the mod_alias documentation. Rather it confuses the issue for readers who don't have sufficient grasp of HTTP to see that it's gibberish. The fact that Apache enables you to shoot yourself in the foot is not a good reason to do so. It then proceeds to list HTTP status codes, and gives an errordocument for each one. Unfortunately a number of them are bogus gibberish. After you read the article, how could you possibly say that it is spam? That is perhaps the most relevant article I've ever seen about Apache ErrorDocuments and more specifically, HTTP Status Codes. Spam is not the right word. But it's far too ill-informed and misleading to give the implied endorsement of a link from an official or semi-official Apache site. I'm sure you could make a useful contribution if you want to. But you're not ready to go solo. So why not put your contents (rather than links to it) on the wiki, where some of the regulars can help improve it for everyone? -- Nick Kew Application Development with Apache - the Apache Modules Book http://www.apachetutor.org/
Re: [Issue] External links @ the wiki, aka pagechange wars
ons 2007-05-30 klockan 21:39 +0100 skrev Nick Kew: It then proceeds to list HTTP status codes, and gives an errordocument for each one. Unfortunately a number of them are bogus gibberish. It's the gibberish Apache emits if you shoot yourself in the foot using Redirect. Garbage in, garbage out. Regards Henrik signature.asc Description: Detta är en digitalt signerad meddelandedel
Re: [Issue] External links @ the wiki, aka pagechange wars
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote: We have a serious issue to determine, and I've asked for a 48 hour cooldown of wiki.apache.org/httpd/ to make a decision, and in the meantime asked that the wiki become read-only for the conclusion of this decision. [XX] Our httpd wiki is open to external resources for httpd. [ ] External httpd resources are prohibited. I mean this explicitly, obviously a link to MS/Sun/RedHat about their specific platform would be genuinely useful and relevant. I believe that Wikis must be able to link to external sites -- just like we do in the regular documentation. However, just like the the regular documentation, these links are generally restricted to Vendors, or other long standing and stable sites. (or... example.com) I believe we can look to wikipedia's linking policy as a good example of how to build a 'policy' that people can understand: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:External_links In this case: AdSense covered personal blogs especially from people who do not contribute in other mediums doesn't seem like a good place to be linking to. On the revision war: I don't like it; I do believe AskApache's link should be removed. I don't blame megaspaz, he was using the tools available, trying to communicate with AskApache that the link was unacceptable. The larger problem is that the AskApache person has never, AFAIK, made themselves known on the mailing list, or other mediums, making it impossible to communicate with them in other manners. On a policy: My opinion doesn't fit into a hard and fast rule, and rather relies upon discretion. -Paul
Re: [Issue] External links @ the wiki, aka pagechange wars
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote: We have a serious issue to determine, and I've asked for a 48 hour cooldown of wiki.apache.org/httpd/ to make a decision, and in the meantime asked that the wiki become read-only for the conclusion of this decision. [ ] Our httpd wiki is open to external resources for httpd. [X] External httpd resources are prohibited. I mean this explicitly, obviously a link to MS/Sun/RedHat about their specific platform would be genuinely useful and relevant. Not that I really have a vote but I'll still reply since my input might be appreciated. We don't have controle over external content... Page can be remove, or updated etc without us knowing. So I think its better to not link to external resources. I'd like to ask a question concerning this also: What about profiles? Most contributers have a little page telling about themselfs and linking to there homepage/blog/... how would this fit in? -- ~Jorge
Re: [Issue] External links @ the wiki, aka pagechange wars
On 5/24/07, Yoav Shapira [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi, On 5/24/07, Craig McClanahan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 5/23/07, William A. Rowe, Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: We have a serious issue to determine, and I've asked for a 48 hour cooldown of wiki.apache.org/httpd/ to make a decision, and in the meantime asked that the wiki become read-only for the conclusion of this decision. [ X ] Our httpd wiki is open to external resources for httpd. [ ] External httpd resources are prohibited. snip / If a Wiki isn't open to community input ( where community here means *users*, not the typical Apache definition of community meaning the *committers*), then what is it for? Committers can already post to I Agree with Craig. I think there is a clear and reasonable middle ground: External links are encouraged where they add substantial value, but you may not link to your own pages or otherwise seek private benefits from external links. This has been the unwritten rule in the apache httpd docs for as long as I remember. I have personally added many external links to the regular docs to things written by apache contributors, but not to my own pages. Joshua.
Re: [Issue] External links @ the wiki, aka pagechange wars
On 5/24/07, Craig McClanahan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If a Wiki isn't open to community input ( where community here means *users*, not the typical Apache definition of community meaning the *committers*), then what is it for? The wiki is for community input. Not recognizing the difference between contributed wiki content and external links to an ad-driven site may influence your feelings on the matter. -- Eric Covener [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [Issue] External links @ the wiki, aka pagechange wars
On Thu, May 24, 2007 at 08:05:30AM -0400, Joshua Slive wrote: External links are encouraged where they add substantial value, but you may not link to your own pages or otherwise seek private benefits from external links. I like the elegance of this rule, because if it's your page and you words, well you can just add the content to the wiki anyway. But at the same time it may invite even more awkward and inappropriate behaviour, e.g. paying someone else to add the links on your behalf. I think this problem is always going to fall into the We know abuse when we see it category, it requires a vague kind of rule-making which only humans can apply. I'm in favour of banning these links in this instance, though not all external links. -- Colm MacCárthaighPublic Key: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [Issue] External links @ the wiki, aka pagechange wars
On May 24, 2007, at 8:50 AM, Colm MacCarthaigh wrote: On Thu, May 24, 2007 at 08:05:30AM -0400, Joshua Slive wrote: External links are encouraged where they add substantial value, but you may not link to your own pages or otherwise seek private benefits from external links. I like the elegance of this rule, because if it's your page and you words, well you can just add the content to the wiki anyway. But at the same time it may invite even more awkward and inappropriate behaviour, e.g. paying someone else to add the links on your behalf. I think this problem is always going to fall into the We know abuse when we see it category, it requires a vague kind of rule-making which only humans can apply. I'm in favour of banning these links in this instance, though not all external links. +1
Re: [Issue] External links @ the wiki, aka pagechange wars
On 5/24/07, Jim Jagielski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On May 24, 2007, at 8:50 AM, Colm MacCarthaigh wrote: On Thu, May 24, 2007 at 08:05:30AM -0400, Joshua Slive wrote: External links are encouraged where they add substantial value, but you may not link to your own pages or otherwise seek private benefits from external links. I like the elegance of this rule, because if it's your page and you words, well you can just add the content to the wiki anyway. But at the same time it may invite even more awkward and inappropriate behaviour, e.g. paying someone else to add the links on your behalf. I think this problem is always going to fall into the We know abuse when we see it category, it requires a vague kind of rule-making which only humans can apply. I'm in favour of banning these links in this instance, though not all external links. +1 aol / -- justin
Re: [Issue] External links @ the wiki, aka pagechange wars
On May 24, 2007, at 08:50, Colm MacCarthaigh wrote: On Thu, May 24, 2007 at 08:05:30AM -0400, Joshua Slive wrote: External links are encouraged where they add substantial value, but you may not link to your own pages or otherwise seek private benefits from external links. I like the elegance of this rule, because if it's your page and you words, well you can just add the content to the wiki anyway. But at the same time it may invite even more awkward and inappropriate behaviour, e.g. paying someone else to add the links on your behalf. I think this problem is always going to fall into the We know abuse when we see it category, it requires a vague kind of rule-making which only humans can apply. I'm in favour of banning these links in this instance, though not all external links. The trouble in this particular case is that the contributor in question writes articles that are misleading or completely wrong, and appears to be unaware of the fact that he is being misleading and wrong. I'm not sure if he's genuinely trying to be helpful, or merely trying to inflate his google ranking by creating pages that link back to his site. Either way, the content that he produces does not add substantial value, nor do the pages to which he links, and often his content actively promotes practices that are discouraged as being less-than-best-practice. Added to this is his refusal to accept correction, so that when his articles are modified to reflect best practice and reality, he gets offended and changes it back. Behind the scenes there are angry and insulting email messages being exchanged, which I'm occasionally copied on, in which he defends his articles as being the best things ever written, and accusing us of singling him out for abuse. It's all very juvenile and time consuming. However, one of the side effects of having this kind of public Wiki is that we have to do this kind of policing and maintenance, and some people are going to feel singled out. -- If you miss this moment You miss your life
Re: [Issue] External links @ the wiki, aka pagechange wars
On May 24, 2007, at 04:23, Tony Stevenson wrote: AskApache has had several email conversations with both myself, and Rich. In which he was asked politely, but firmly to not use links to content on his site. NOTE: NOT because external links are bad, but because the articles to which he was linking were misleading, incorrect, and promoted sub- optimal solutions to common problems. The implied endorsement (The Apache docs link to this article, so it must be true) was unfortunate, and undesirable. -- We are here and it is now. Further than that all human knowledge is moonshine. H.L.Mencken
Re: [Issue] External links @ the wiki, aka pagechange wars
On Thu, May 24, 2007 at 10:14:23AM -0400, Rich Bowen wrote: NOTE: NOT because external links are bad, but because the articles to which he was linking were misleading, incorrect, and promoted sub- optimal solutions to common problems. The implied endorsement (The Apache docs link to this article, so it must be true) was unfortunate, and undesirable. +1 - I don't think a single users abuse should force us into making a catch all policy. Part of the price of running a wiki is that you'll have to deal with abuse from time to time. vh Mads Toftum -- http://soulfood.dk
Re: [Issue] External links @ the wiki, aka pagechange wars
On 24/05/07, Mads Toftum [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: +1 - I don't think a single users abuse should force us into making a catch all policy. Part of the price of running a wiki is that you'll have to deal with abuse from time to time. I also agree with all of Rich's sentiments, but I feel a policy document would help, just to have something to point to when dealing with this guy in particular. Without it or some recognised kind of forum for wiki discussions (I'm not sure [EMAIL PROTECTED] counts as that) we're just back to this kind of commitwar. -- noodl
Re: [Issue] External links @ the wiki, aka pagechange wars
On 5/24/07, Rich Bowen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On May 24, 2007, at 04:23, Tony Stevenson wrote: AskApache has had several email conversations with both myself, and Rich. In which he was asked politely, but firmly to not use links to content on his site. NOTE: NOT because external links are bad, but because the articles to which he was linking were misleading, incorrect, and promoted sub- optimal solutions to common problems. The implied endorsement (The Apache docs link to this article, so it must be true) was unfortunate, and undesirable. Although I respect Bill's desire to have this solved apache-wide, I actually think that this case would have been better addressed in the closer confines of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Let's just address this particular case and not worry about the general issue for now. The Apache wiki is not some democratic exercise like wikipedia where we need to treat everyone equally. We are a meritocracy, not a democracy, even on the wiki. Certain people (like Rich) have earned the right to make final decisions about what should be on the wiki. AskApache has not earned that right. The content that he is adding is inappropriate (and violates my suggested policy) for many reasons. I suggest that someone email him and tell him that he is henceforth banned from: 1) Making any links to his personal site; and 2) Reverting any change made by someone else (even if that change is a reversion of his change). If he can't live with those rules, he can be banned for good. If you would like me to send this email (as someone who has not interacted with him before) I'd be fine with that (although I don't know his address). Joshua.
Re: [Issue] External links @ the wiki, aka pagechange wars
On 5/24/07, Joshua Slive [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The Apache wiki is not some democratic exercise like wikipedia where
we need to treat everyone equally. We are a meritocracy, not a
democracy, even on the wiki. Certain people (like Rich) have earned
the right to make final decisions about what should be on the wiki.
AskApache has not earned that right.
+1
Maybe one rule that states that {INSERT AUTHERIZED PEOPLE HERE} can
make a decision on a dispute. Example: some external link that provide
bad/false or not prefured information.
If that person/persons decide the link needs to go it should.
Optionally these decision can be posted to [EMAIL PROTECTED] for comunity
input.
--
~Jorge
Re: [Issue] External links @ the wiki, aka pagechange wars
On 5/24/07, Jorge Schrauwen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Maybe one rule that states that {INSERT AUTHERIZED PEOPLE HERE} can
make a decision on a dispute. Example: some external link that provide
bad/false or not prefured information.
If that person/persons decide the link needs to go it should.
Optionally these decision can be posted to [EMAIL PROTECTED] for comunity
input.
That group should be the members of the HTTP Server PMC. We don't
need to create yet another group for wiki oversight - the current
oversight is working well (more or less) - this is an instance of that
oversight kicking in.
(I am all for people who help with documentation to be on the PMC.
Those PMC members who are following such activity should feel free to
nominate worthy folks to the PMC!) -- justin
Re: [Issue] External links @ the wiki, aka pagechange wars
[for infra, who is bcc'ed - three * bullets below] Joshua Slive wrote: Although I respect Bill's desire to have this solved apache-wide, I actually think that this case would have been better addressed in the closer confines of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Let's just address this particular case and not worry about the general issue for now. -sorry- if I've given that impression - and in fairness to all, we do want an /httpd/ policy so that we can perform the mandatory oversight. * I'm not suggesting we are setting policy for anything beyond wiki.a.o/httpd/ Each project has to apply whatever supervision/guidance it's PMC decides. The Apache wiki is not some democratic exercise like wikipedia where we need to treat everyone equally. We are a meritocracy, not a democracy, even on the wiki. Certain people (like Rich) have earned the right to make final decisions about what should be on the wiki. AskApache has not earned that right. Well said. The content that he is adding is inappropriate (and violates my suggested policy) for many reasons. I suggest that someone email him and tell him that he is henceforth banned from: 1) Making any links to his personal site; and 2) Reverting any change made by someone else (even if that change is a reversion of his change). If he can't live with those rules, he can be banned for good. Actually, it's pretty clear this was already asked, and answered by his actions. It would be good to know about off-list dialogs like this, at least by a cc/bcc to [EMAIL PROTECTED], so we know the warning is out there and can simply swing the ban-stick when the warning is violated. It obviously has been since Rich already communicated these rules. Since Rich and others already asked AskApache on multiple occasions ... If you would like me to send this email (as someone who has not interacted with him before) I'd be fine with that (although I don't know his address). This time I think Rich and others have already done so, and have gone above and beyond to help him participate constructively. S/he can't, or chooses not to, so the appropriate action is to remove access now. Once there is a clear policy, it's trivial to have #asfinfra or mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] to remove a spammer or user who can't and won't follow policy after they have been reminded once or twice. The fact that we didn't have one (or inside information that these issues /were/ brought up with -this- wikiuser) made it hard to conduct oversight. * I thank everyone here, plus those beyond httpd, for all of the observations about wiki ecosystems. We had a large number of responses today from the PMC, so I think we are essentially on the same page and should now * ask infra to reopen the wiki to general write access, * aks infra to please revoke AskApache/their ip from the httpd wiki. and this case is dispelled. Would our docs@ folks try to codify Joshua's comments and others into a policy page on the httpd wiki that users can refer to? Thanks all! Bill
Re: [Issue] External links @ the wiki, aka pagechange wars
On 5/24/07, William A. Rowe, Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [for infra, who is bcc'ed - three * bullets below] * ask infra to reopen the wiki to general write access, * aks infra to please revoke AskApache/their ip from the httpd wiki. +1.
Re: [Issue] External links @ the wiki, aka pagechange wars
On 5/24/07, Justin Erenkrantz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 5/24/07, Jorge Schrauwen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Maybe one rule that states that {INSERT AUTHERIZED PEOPLE HERE} can
make a decision on a dispute. Example: some external link that provide
bad/false or not prefured information.
If that person/persons decide the link needs to go it should.
Optionally these decision can be posted to [EMAIL PROTECTED] for comunity
input.
That group should be the members of the HTTP Server PMC. We don't
need to create yet another group for wiki oversight - the current
oversight is working well (more or less) - this is an instance of that
oversight kicking in.
(I am all for people who help with documentation to be on the PMC.
Those PMC members who are following such activity should feel free to
nominate worthy folks to the PMC!) -- justin
I have limited knowledge* of the internal workings of the ASF,
It was my idea also that members of httpd or docs project would get that role.
* I am a observer of [EMAIL PROTECTED] and make an occasional comment and try
to chip in on he wiki where I can.
--
~Jorge
Re: [Issue] External links @ the wiki, aka pagechange wars
On Thu, May 24, 2007 at 06:47:49PM -0500, Webmaster wrote: Say whatever you want, I'm not going to argue when the evidence is online for everyone to examine. Go look at the wiki at my posting history, you will see how unfairly I have been treated. I've done just that today, never having looked at it before. In my opinion, you have been treated fairly and have been given substantial leeway. Why not respond like you are supposed to and actually SHOW me what is wrong, misleading, or poorly written? You do not allow us to do so in the most efficient, convenient, accessible and collaborative manner - to edit them directly with comments. The people here are not free consultation for your personal website. Isn't that what the wiki is for? How can we improve content when it just gets deleted right away? I don't have time to try to make a couple people like me.. thats silly, I go to the wiki to contribute, share ideas, and learn about my favorite software. So why do you post so much content only in the form of links? you are mis-representing the problem here. -- Colm MacCárthaighPublic Key: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
