> 1. Email-address verification of the user automatically adds the user
> to the project
>
> 2. First few contributions by the user are modified by the admin, once
> they prove themselves genuine and worthy, they can be moved to
> non-moderated status and their future contributions are automaticall
> Tom Purl wrote:
> [...]
>> There are two types of users in a Google project, members and owners.
>> Members have access to *everything* except the "project administration"
>> tab. If a malicious user were added as a member, he/she could very
>> easily wreck the wiki because it's stored in an SVN
Tom Purl wrote:
[...]
There are two types of users in a Google project, members and owners.
Members have access to *everything* except the "project administration"
tab. If a malicious user were added as a member, he/she could very
easily wreck the wiki because it's stored in an SVN repository, t
Am Dienstag 27 Februar 2007 schrieb Tom Purl:
> I don't think that anyone is rejecting Wikibooks outright. I think that
> they should be on our non-Google top 5 list personally. I just think
> that people are cautious because very few people have experience with
> it. No one for sure knows whet
> I imagine these sites work from the frantic effort of very large
> numbers of contributors (much larger than we should expect).
> Twenty-four hours per day, there is someone monitoring edits to their
> favourite wikipedia page. From complaints I've seen from burnt-out
> contributors, the spam and
Brian McKee wrote:
Proof is in the pudding - wikipedia and wikibooks seem to prove
it _does_ work.
I imagine these sites work from the frantic effort of very large
numbers of contributors (much larger than we should expect).
Twenty-four hours per day, there is someone monitoring edits to
their
>>> Using wikibooks.org sounds attractive, but I don't see any protection
>>> against spamming. And that is exactly what happens to the Vim tips.
>>> It's just a matter of time before this happens on wikibooks.org too.
>>
>> I agree that spam protection should be our top priority.
>
> Why ? We al
Am Freitag 23 Februar 2007 schrieb Tom Purl:
> So what do you guys think?
Have you noticed the vi book on Wikibooks. More then half the book is allready
dedicated to Vim:
http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Learning_the_vi_editor/Vim
We could just as well turn the book into a Vim book. It also has a
Am Freitag 23 Februar 2007 schrieb Yakov Lerner:
> My opinion is that that wikipedia-style wiki is the best. It's scalable,
> it proved itself, i think it's easy on admins, afaik it's used not only by
> wikipedia.
Of course not! There is Wikibooks which is often underestimated:
http://en.wikibo
Am Montag 26 Februar 2007 schrieb Steve Hall:
> From: "Yakov Lerner", Mon, February 26, 2007 5:38 am
>
> > On 2/26/07, A.J.Mechelynck wrote:
> > > If we gan get hosting space somewhere for a mediawiki server, I'm
> > > all in favour.
> >
> > From: http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Wiki_Science:How_to_st
Am Dienstag 27 Februar 2007 schrieb Bram Moolenaar:
> I do wonder how they avoid spamming. It seems anyone can edit a page.
The combinations of several options:
1) "Recent Changes" can be monitored by RSS feed.
2) Very many users.
3) Administrators have a "rollback" option and can hunt down edi
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 27-Feb-07, at 10:35 AM, Tom Purl wrote:
Using wikibooks.org sounds attractive, but I don't see any protection
against spamming. And that is exactly what happens to the Vim tips.
It's just a matter of time before this happens on wikibooks.org t
>It may be legalese -- some lawyers add that kind of talktalk just to
stay "on
>the safe side"... for them -- yet these (marked out with !) are the
kind
>of clauses I would hesitate long and hard (perhaps forever ;-) ) before
>signing. Short of a benevolent sponsor, I seriously wonder what we
s
Tom Purl wrote:
> > Besides that, transferring all existing tips to the wiki needs to be
> > tried out.
>
> I don't understand what you mean here. Are you saying that we should
> move forward with a Google wiki conversion, irrespective of whether or
> not we end up using the Google wiki?
No, I
>The automated mail account would:
>- Drop any message where subject does not start with "vimtip".
>- Forward vimtip messages to a Vim mailing list.
>Ideally there would also be some logic to switch off if a burst
>of messages occurs (abuse defence). I realise that an automatic
>way of spamming a m
> Tom Purl wrote:
>> However, there are still people, including Bram, who seem to feel pretty
>> strongly about using the Google wiki. Bram, are we going down the wrong
>> track by planning for a non-Google wiki? For this site, I think it's
>> very important that we get as close to a consensus as
Georg Dahn wrote:
> --- Bram Moolenaar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Using wikibooks.org sounds attractive, but I don't see any protection
> > against spamming. And that is exactly what happens to the Vim tips.
> > It's just a matter of time before this happens on wikibooks.org too.
>
> WikiMe
Samuel Wright wrote:
> On 27/02/07, Bram Moolenaar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Using wikibooks.org sounds attractive, but I don't see any protection
> > against spamming. And that is exactly what happens to the Vim tips.
> > It's just a matter of time before this happens on wikibooks.org too.
Hi!
--- Bram Moolenaar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Using wikibooks.org sounds attractive, but I don't see any protection
> against spamming. And that is exactly what happens to the Vim tips.
> It's just a matter of time before this happens on wikibooks.org too.
WikiMedia, which is the software
On 27/02/07, Bram Moolenaar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Using wikibooks.org sounds attractive, but I don't see any protection
against spamming. And that is exactly what happens to the Vim tips.
It's just a matter of time before this happens on wikibooks.org too.
The difference is that people ca
On 2/27/07, Bram Moolenaar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Tom Purl wrote:
> Ok, so the majority of people seem to be saying that the Google wiki
> isn't very well-suited for our needs. Most notably, it's very likely
> that it will severely inhibit contributions. I agree with this
> whole-heartedl
Denis Perelyubskiy wrote:
> On Mon, 26 Feb 2007 09:29:32 -0600 (CST), "Tom Purl" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> said:
> > Ok, so the majority of people seem to be saying that the Google wiki
> > isn't very well-suited for our needs. Most notably, it's very likely
> > that it will severely inhibit contrib
Steve Hall wrote:
> From: "Yakov Lerner", Mon, February 26, 2007 5:38 am
> > On 2/26/07, A.J.Mechelynck wrote:
> > >
> > > If we gan get hosting space somewhere for a mediawiki server, I'm
> > > all in favour.
> >
> > From: http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Wiki_Science:How_to_start_a_Wiki
>
> I st
Tom Purl wrote:
> Ok, so the majority of people seem to be saying that the Google wiki
> isn't very well-suited for our needs. Most notably, it's very likely
> that it will severely inhibit contributions. I agree with this
> whole-heartedly.
>
> Also, a lot of people are discussing third-party
Paul Irofti write:
> I don't understand why Google Wiki is being discussed here as the main
> solution. As I see it there are a few _major_ disadvantages of using it:
I can understand that you may have something against using Google, but
there is no reason to be paranoid about it.
> - it has so
On Mon, 26 Feb 2007 09:29:32 -0600 (CST), "Tom Purl" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
said:
> Ok, so the majority of people seem to be saying that the Google wiki
> isn't very well-suited for our needs. Most notably, it's very likely
> that it will severely inhibit contributions. I agree with this
> whole-he
Ok, so the majority of people seem to be saying that the Google wiki
isn't very well-suited for our needs. Most notably, it's very likely
that it will severely inhibit contributions. I agree with this
whole-heartedly.
Also, a lot of people are discussing third-party wiki hosting sites and
the po
From: "Yakov Lerner", Mon, February 26, 2007 5:38 am
> On 2/26/07, A.J.Mechelynck wrote:
> >
> > If we gan get hosting space somewhere for a mediawiki server, I'm
> > all in favour.
>
> From: http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Wiki_Science:How_to_start_a_Wiki
I started one here ages ago here:
http://
On Mon, Feb 26, 2007 at 12:55:58PM +0100, A.J.Mechelynck wrote:
> !
> >Obligations
> ># The service is provided free-of-charge, as-is, and without any
> >guarantees or obligations.
> ># We reserve the right to cancel or alter the service at any time.
> !!!
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Yakov Lerner ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
On 2/26/07, A.J.Mechelynck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Paul Irofti wrote:
Hello vimmers,
I don't understand why Google Wiki is being discussed here as the main
solution. As I see it there are a few _major_ disadvantages of using
Hi!
On Mon, 26 Feb 2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > ElWiki.com
> >Free MediaWiki hosting with fast setup. A free .com/net/org domain
> > is offered for wikis which reach 10 pages of content. Google AdSense
> > text-ads may be added to the right sidebar to cover hosting expenses.
> >
> > Fr
Yakov Lerner ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> On 2/26/07, A.J.Mechelynck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >Paul Irofti wrote:
> >> Hello vimmers,
> >>
> >> I don't understand why Google Wiki is being discussed here as the main
> >> solution. As I see it there are a few _major_ disadvantages of using it:
>
On Mon, Feb 26, 2007 at 05:38:42AM -0500, Yakov Lerner wrote:
> ElWiki.com
>Free MediaWiki hosting with fast setup. A free .com/net/org domain
> is offered for wikis which reach 10 pages of content. Google AdSense
> text-ads may be added to the right sidebar to cover hosting expenses.
>
> From
vim@vim.org
Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2007 12:42:34 +0200
Subject: Re: VimTips - Google Wiki Usefulness
On Mon, Feb 26, 2007 at 11:24:10AM +0100, A.J.Mechelynck wrote:
> If we gan get hosting space somewhere for a mediawiki server, I'm all in
> favour.
>
I'm not sure what the ho
On 2/26/07, A.J.Mechelynck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Paul Irofti wrote:
> Hello vimmers,
>
> I don't understand why Google Wiki is being discussed here as the main
> solution. As I see it there are a few _major_ disadvantages of using it:
>
> - it has software limitations that a large community,
Paul Irofti wrote:
Hello vimmers,
I don't understand why Google Wiki is being discussed here as the main
solution. As I see it there are a few _major_ disadvantages of using it:
- it has software limitations that a large community, such as ours,
can't cope with
- it's managed and offered by a
On 26/02/07, Denis Perelyubskiy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Sun, 25 Feb 2007 18:57:00 -0800, "Suresh Govindachar"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
> What is wrong with just having a "visual image based manual check"
> as the last step of editing a wiki page? (I hope you know what I
> mean by
Hello vimmers,
I don't understand why Google Wiki is being discussed here as the main
solution. As I see it there are a few _major_ disadvantages of using it:
- it has software limitations that a large community, such as ours,
can't cope with
- it's managed and offered by a third party organiza
On 2/25/07, Tom Purl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I do think that we can do the addition of new people who want to be
> able to edit the wiki manually. That should also filter out the
> spammers. There is only a delay between wanting to edit the wiki and
> being able to do it the first time. N
Tom Purl wrote:
Ok, so here's the proposed workflow:
...
Tom - thanks for spelling out the proposed workflow.
Studying the details is essential for evaluating the system.
OTOH I guess we could just go with something, and if it doesn't
work we would refactor!
If you post another workflow, how a
On Sun, 25 Feb 2007 23:06:54 -0800, "Denis Perelyubskiy"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
> On Sun, 25 Feb 2007 15:43:06 -0600 (CST), "Tom Purl" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> said:
> > > I do think that we can do the addition of new people who want to be
> > > able to edit the wiki manually. That should also
On Sun, 25 Feb 2007 15:43:06 -0600 (CST), "Tom Purl" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
said:
> > I do think that we can do the addition of new people who want to be
> > able to edit the wiki manually. That should also filter out the
> > spammers. There is only a delay between wanting to edit the wiki and
> >
On Sun, 25 Feb 2007 18:57:00 -0800, "Suresh Govindachar"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
> What is wrong with just having a "visual image based manual check"
> as the last step of editing a wiki page? (I hope you know what I
> mean by "visual image based manual check" -- it is the scheme in
>
Tom Purl
>> I do think that we can do the addition of new people who want
>> to be able to edit the wiki manually. That should also filter
>> out the spammers. There is only a delay between wanting to
>> edit the wiki and being able to do it the first time. Not
>> perfect, but it's
> I do think that we can do the addition of new people who want to be
> able to edit the wiki manually. That should also filter out the
> spammers. There is only a delay between wanting to edit the wiki and
> being able to do it the first time. Not perfect, but it's something
> that we can setup
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
John Beckett ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
Bram Moolenaar wrote:
I think this puts too much burdon the volunteers that become an admin.
And it defeats the easy of use of a wiki.
I was suggesting that people who have a tip, or a change, would
email it to a Vim mailing list
John Beckett ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> Bram Moolenaar wrote:
> >I think this puts too much burdon the volunteers that become an admin.
> >And it defeats the easy of use of a wiki.
>
> I was suggesting that people who have a tip, or a change, would
> email it to a Vim mailing list, where it woul
Bram Moolenaar wrote:
I think this puts too much burdon the volunteers that become an admin.
And it defeats the easy of use of a wiki.
I was suggesting that people who have a tip, or a change, would
email it to a Vim mailing list, where it would be massaged by the
community, then posted to the
On 2/24/07, Bram Moolenaar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I do think that we can do the addition of new people who want to be able
to edit the wiki manually.
Your "manual" binds here to "the addition", correct ? Not to the
"edit the wiki", correct, Bram ?
Did you mean here
"we can do manual addi
John Beckett wrote:
> I like the concept of using the Google wiki. In addition to the "Google
> is Good" factor, there is the likelihood of very high reliability and zero
> cost. Also, it seems appropriate due to Bram's work.
>
> As has been pointed out, spam is a really big threat, and will get
I like the concept of using the Google wiki. In addition to the "Google
is Good" factor, there is the likelihood of very high reliability and zero
cost. Also, it seems appropriate due to Bram's work.
As has been pointed out, spam is a really big threat, and will get
worse (more automated) every y
Brian McKee wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 23-Feb-07, at 3:55 PM, A.J.Mechelynck wrote:
Waiting for email (with a pseudorandom confirmation code) proves that
the registration wasn't requested "in your name" by someone else. It
requires no human intervention server-sid
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 23-Feb-07, at 3:55 PM, A.J.Mechelynck wrote:
Waiting for email (with a pseudorandom confirmation code) proves
that the registration wasn't requested "in your name" by someone
else. It requires no human intervention server-side and only a few
Brian McKee wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 23-Feb-07, at 3:00 PM, Brian McKee wrote:
On 23-Feb-07, at 2:32 PM, Tom Purl wrote:
I've done a bit of work on the vimtips wiki at Google the last few days,
and it's come to my attention that it isn't really designed to do wh
> I guess we need (if possible) something along the lines of "the" wiki,
> .wikipedia.org
Mediawiki (the wiki engine used by Wikipedia) is very nice, and it's the
one I'm leaning towards also.
>> This awkward user-registration process will most certainly keep
>> people from contributing or updati
Yakov Lerner wrote:
[...]
My opinion is that that wikipedia-style wiki is the best. It's scalable,
it proved itself, i think it's easy on admins, afaik it's used not only by
wikipedia.
Regarding anonymous contributions, they proved problematic on vim.org/tips.
Anonymous contrib was what created
Tom Purl wrote:
I've done a bit of work on the vimtips wiki at Google the last few days,
and it's come to my attention that it isn't really designed to do what
we want it to do. The Google wiki is designed to be used by a small
number of people working on a particular open source project. It is
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 23-Feb-07, at 3:00 PM, Brian McKee wrote:
On 23-Feb-07, at 2:32 PM, Tom Purl wrote:
I've done a bit of work on the vimtips wiki at Google the last few
days,
and it's come to my attention that it isn't really designed to do
what
we want it to
On 2/23/07, Tom Purl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I've done a bit of work on the vimtips wiki at Google the last few days,
and it's come to my attention that it isn't really designed to do what
we want it to do. The Google wiki is designed to be used by a small
number of people working on a partic
I've done a bit of work on the vimtips wiki at Google the last few days,
and it's come to my attention that it isn't really designed to do what
we want it to do. The Google wiki is designed to be used by a small
number of people working on a particular open source project. It is not
designed to b
60 matches
Mail list logo
