From: Charles E Campbell Jr, Fri, August 11, 2006 11:31 am > Tom Purl wrote: > > > > The big downside of a wiki is administrative costs. It would > > probably be slightly more difficult to fight spam, and you would > > need a heck of a lot more moderators.
No more than we currently have. A lot of issues are self-regulated because users are capable of fixing pages. > And the spam problem has already afflicted the tips, at the cost of > using moderators to elide them. I can just see the (insert favorite > descriptive adjectival phrase here) spammers wiping out existing > tips' contents and inserting their garbage. Of course, I'm not a > wiki expert, and perhaps this problem isn't a problem? Wikis are extremely durable, especially since anyone can fix them. Abuse tends to be over-advertised, especially for wikis requiring login to edit (like the current site). MediaWiki (Wikipedia) in particular is very strong in this area, since it is possible to see diffs between any two versions of a page. Of course it helps to have a few moderators that can lock down a page prone to abuse, but any user can revert a change simply by going back to a previous non-spammed version and pasting it to the current. The current Tips is terribly burdened by typos and obsolete pages, I think a Wiki would be a good way to fix the current problems. -- Steve Hall [ digitect dancingpaper com ]
