Geoff Swan wrote:
+1 I think it unlikely that a gEDA wiki would be targeted.
It is very likely to be targeted by semi clever spam bots. I administrate
a couple of wikis. Plain, anonymous write accesss had to be disabled because
they caught spam bots trying to distribute their spew after a few
On Tue, 13 Sep 2011 21:24:57 +0200
Kai-Martin Knaak kn...@iqo.uni-hannover.de wrote:
Geoff Swan wrote:
+1 I think it unlikely that a gEDA wiki would be targeted.
It is very likely to be targeted by semi clever spam bots. I administrate
a couple of wikis. Plain, anonymous write accesss
Vladimir Zhbanov wrote:
On Wed, Sep 07, 2011 at 10:51:31PM +0200, Kai-Martin Knaak wrote:
I am close to start off a gEDA wikibook (http://en.wikibooks.org).
Would you join the effort?
How about updating the existing wiki documentation?
Reasons to go for wikibooks:
a) IMHO, it is good
a) IMHO, it is good practice to have a user manual completely separate
from documentation of features, formats and APIs. While the latter has
to be complete, comprehensive and super correct, the former should
focus on ease of use. These are conflicting goals. Think automatic
extraction
On Sep 12, 2011, at 8:43 AM, DJ Delorie wrote:
developers. They're your greatest source of information on how the
tools work.
At the reference manual level, perhaps (although when I documented the gnetlist
scheme primitives I didn't get much developer help). But at the level of
toolkit
Am 12.09.2011 um 16:43 schrieb DJ Delorie:
1. The easier it is to contribute, the more likely you are to be
vandalized. Wikipedia has seen plenty of this problem. You need
some method of authorizing trusted contributors and approving
changes by others.
As a heavy user of another
On Tue, Sep 13, 2011 at 8:59 AM, Markus Hitter m...@jump-ing.de wrote:
Am 12.09.2011 um 16:43 schrieb DJ Delorie:
1. The easier it is to contribute, the more likely you are to be
vandalized. Wikipedia has seen plenty of this problem. You need
some method of authorizing trusted
7 matches
Mail list logo
