2009/3/8 James Mckenzie <jjmckenzi...@earthlink.net>: > David Gerard <dger...@gmail.com> wrote on March 8th: >>2009/3/8 James Mckenzie <jjmckenzi...@earthlink.net>:
>>> Would you be willing to clean out the ash and trash that will show up with >>> an open Wiki? >>I already said I would, yes - that the only reason for not just >>starting one is to avoid massive duplication of effort. > If we move to an open Wiki, be prepared to be very busy. I've seen spambots > get past most, if not all, of the verification systems and bomb away. I've > read where several systems had to shut them down for fear of being sued. At > the present time, we have verification for exactly that reason. To keep the > spam out and to pre-edit those entries that do not provide all of the > information needed. I come from years of fighting vandals on Wikipedia. I know a thing or two about the field ... You're conflating a few separate things in your reply: * The spammers are mostly dealt with by requiring a login to write stuff *and* having a submission address or (better) form for those who can't be bothered creating yet another website login. * "I've read where several systems had to shut them down for fear of being sued" - [citation needed]. Sec 230 has proven enough to completely protect Wikipedia in actual court cases, not just in theory. * Entries that do not provide all the information needed - that's quality control, which is part of the editing process. - d.
