On Sun, Jun 14, 2009 at 3:19 PM, Andrew wrote:
> Agreed with John and Gnangarra.
>
> Re: John's point about Brianna's suggestion - I would have been under the
> impression that the right to edit would under that model be granted to
> specific known individuals, so the committee would already be a
On Sun, Jun 14, 2009 at 12:16 PM, John Vandenberg wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 10, 2009 at 11:43 AM, Sarah Ewart wrote:
>
> Before non-members can edit the WM-AU website, a new resolution from
> the committee would be needed.
I agree the we would need committee support and a resolution changing our
web
Agreed with John and Gnangarra.
Re: John's point about Brianna's suggestion - I would have been under the
impression that the right to edit would under that model be granted to
specific known individuals, so the committee would already be aware of the
person involved, perceive a tangible benefit i
Reading this I see that there may be a shift as to what the purpose of the
Wiki was for, from my understanding it was for the record keeping related to
WM-au activities, this would include some discussions and event notices but
I cant see any purpose that we would have a need for non-members to hav
On Wed, Jun 10, 2009 at 11:43 AM, Sarah Ewart wrote:
> Yes, I also agree there's no consensus, but remember that this isn't the
> English Wikipedia and we don't necessarily do things by consensus. WP:CON
> can be useful in group decision making, but we're not bound by it and having
> a Wikipedia-st
Yes, I also agree there's no consensus, but remember that this isn't the
English Wikipedia and we don't necessarily do things by consensus. WP:CON
can be useful in group decision making, but we're not bound by it and having
a Wikipedia-style "consensus" for something doesn't necessarily mean it wil
On Tue, Jun 9, 2009 at 9:46 PM, private musings wrote:
> oh... ok!
> carry on :-)
How about we run a poll on the wiki.. oh wait, then the non
members can't vote (aka me)
Maybe you could try a flagged rev/protection type scheme where
everything is protected to the "member" group by default and
;s unnecessary because the people running the site currently are doing
a damn fine job, and have both my sympathies and appreciation.
-- All the best,
Nick.
-Original Message-
From: private musings
Reply-to: Wikimedia-au
To: Wikimedia-au
Subject: Re: [Wikimediaau-l] Open website editi
oh... ok!
carry on :-)
On Tue, Jun 9, 2009 at 9:22 PM, Andrew wrote:
> I don't see any such consensus emerging in this discussion - it actually
> seems to be more the other way.
>
> 2009/6/9 private musings
>
>> it looks to me like we're heading for consensus that a bit more open
>> editing wou
I don't see any such consensus emerging in this discussion - it actually
seems to be more the other way.
2009/6/9 private musings
> it looks to me like we're heading for consensus that a bit more open
> editing would be a good thing - not for IP addresses, but for folk who have
> confirmed their
it looks to me like we're heading for consensus that a bit more open editing
would be a good thing - not for IP addresses, but for folk who have
confirmed their email address (per Nick's technical suggestion)... could we
implement this or could someone suitably empowered indicate how they see
this
Indeed. Agreed with Sarah's post - she put it far better than I did :)
If there is a learning curve for new users, perhaps we could simply include
a FAQ on editing the communal wiki or a link to it in the welcome
pack/greeting that members receive when they first join.
Andrew
2009/6/5 Sarah Ewar
I can't say I'm enamored with the idea of anonymous editing. As I recall, we
had several reasons for restricting editing. As Liam said, one was to
provide members privs (editing rights for the wiki is still listed on the
membership page as a member's benefit), and another was concern about
disrupti
My personal view is that the editing should be members only but it should be
as easy as possible for confirmed members to have the means to edit. I
believe this is presently the case so no change is required.
cheers
Andrew
2009/6/5 Brianna Laugher
> Hi,
>
> Having open editing for the website i
Hi,
Having open editing for the website is indeed not a technical problem
as Liam mentioned.
The thing that I am concerned about, in wanting to clearly delineate
'member' and 'open' spaces, is the situation where non-members have
undue influence or expression and it is not possible to simply and
>From what I recall, the reason we didn't have open editing of the Wikimedia
Australia wiki is by way of providing something special to members. I am
personally not against the idea of opening up the editing to non-members but
AFAICR that was the issue - not a technical one.
-Liam
wittylama.com/bl
found myself nodding furiously at Pengo's first post :-)
@nickj - it sound to me that you have the appropriate technical know how to
implement the 'open editing once you've confirmed your email' approach which
this thread seems to be moving towards - would you be prepared to make the
appropriate n
> If spam is the main reason to have accounts, would using a CAPTCHA for
> non-confirmed accounts help? (is that a simple option in Mediawiki?)
> Otherwise I'd recommend nothing more restrictive than "confirm email address
> to edit"
> Peter Halasz
> [[User:Pengo]]
I believe, although maybe wrong b
On Fri, May 29, 2009 at 10:55 PM, Lloyd Nguyen wrote:
> I think I have to ask, what kind of things could/would a non-member
> edit on the site?
They might like to RSVP to an event. That's the main thing that comes to
mind.
Also discussion pages (discuss a policy or concern), or fix a typo or
f
I think I have to ask, what kind of things could/would a non-member
edit on the site? Not to say that I'm adverse to the idea, but I don't
really see a large benefit right now.
The site is acting as the front for the chapter, and most of the pages
are records and our official statements and projec
On 2009-May-27 14:17:47 +1000, private musings wrote:
>The big change here is that we'd be opening the doors to WMAU website
>editing to folk who aren't members - I see this as a good thing - I think it
>would encourage folk to engage with the site, and possibly lead to
>membership down the track.
;
> Just my 2 cents.
>
> -- All the best,
> Nick.
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: private musings
> Reply-to: Wikimedia-au
> To: Wikimedia-au
> Subject: [Wikimediaau-l] Open website editing?
> Date: Tue, 26 May 2009 15:47:03 +1000
>
> Hi all,
>
musings
Reply-to: Wikimedia-au
To: Wikimedia-au
Subject: [Wikimediaau-l] Open website editing?
Date: Tue, 26 May 2009 15:47:03 +1000
Hi all,
Having been fairly active on the aussie wiki for the last little while -
a thought occurred to me... Have we tried allowing open access to
editing?
Th
Hi all,
Having been fairly active on the aussie wiki for the last little while - a
thought occurred to me... Have we tried allowing open access to editing?
The whole idea of allowing IP editing is sort of counter-intuitive in many
ways - but perhaps it might help engage folk passing through? - It
24 matches
Mail list logo
