Re: [pgsql-www] We need an Advocacy wiki

> ------- Original Message -------
> From: Lukas Kahwe Smith <smith(at)pooteeweet(dot)org>
> To: Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>
> Sent: 04/08/07, 19:04:34
> Subject: Re: [pgsql-advocacy] [pgsql-www] We need an Advocacy wiki
>
> Oh maybe I missed something here, but I did not realize that we are
> discussing replacing the main site with a wiki. I just think that the
> wiki is perfect when we want to involve a broad audience in the creation
> of the text (which may very well then we moved to techdoc or the
> documentation later on) or when its just for a quick one shot with a
> life time if a few weeks (months tops).

I fully support the use of a wiki for that (a good example is Greg Smith's recent pg/my comparison). I *do not* support the use of a wiki for final publication of anything aimed at end users.

I also have no issue experimenting with permissions to help Josh and the advocacy guys, but I don't think another wiki is required.

/D

Dave Page wrote:
>
>> ------- Original Message -------
>> From: Lukas Kahwe Smith <smith(at)pooteeweet(dot)org>
>> To: Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>
>> Sent: 04/08/07, 19:04:34
>> Subject: Re: [pgsql-advocacy] [pgsql-www] We need an Advocacy wiki
>>
>> Oh maybe I missed something here, but I did not realize that we are
>> discussing replacing the main site with a wiki. I just think that the
>> wiki is perfect when we want to involve a broad audience in the creation
>> of the text (which may very well then we moved to techdoc or the
>> documentation later on) or when its just for a quick one shot with a
>> life time if a few weeks (months tops).
>
> I fully support the use of a wiki for that (a good example is Greg Smith's recent pg/my comparison). I *do not* support the use of a wiki for final publication of anything aimed at end users.
>
> I also have no issue experimenting with permissions to help Josh and the advocacy guys, but I don't think another wiki is required.

+1

regards,
Lukas

All,

In the interests of "solving the real problem" let me explain why the current
wiki permissions aren't working for *some* Advocacy stuff.

For both OSCON and LWE we did this:

1) Put up a wiki page to sign up booth volunteers etc.
2) Posted a call for volunteers to several public mailing lists of PUGs, LUGs,
PMs etc.
3) People tried to sign up on the wiki and found that they couldn't.
4) People e-mailed me/Josh/Selena and we had to edit the wiki for them.
5) Eventually Selena got frustrated and set up a wiki page on an external
site.

This is why I was specifically thinking of a 2nd wiki for "temporary" pages.
While I would not object to automating the authorization process for the main
developer wiki, wiki pages for coordinating activities are kind of a separate
task from (for example) writing developer docs or PostgreSQL vs. MySQL
comparisons (there was, btw, no vandalism on this external wiki).

The "booth duty wiki" needs authorization which is simple and immediate so
that we can pull in volunteers; authorization for the Developer wiki can (and
maybe should) be more cumbersome in order to discourage automated vandalism.

--
Josh Berkus
PostgreSQL @ Sun
San Francisco

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: RIPEMD160

> I fully support the use of a wiki for that (a good
> example is Greg Smith's recent pg/my comparison).
> I *do not* support the use of a wiki for final
> publication of anything aimed at end users.

Well, that's a problem - Google doesn't really care where
on the postgresql.org we stick something, or whether
it is a wiki or a techdocs or a simple HTML page.

> I also have no issue experimenting with permissions to
> help Josh and the advocacy guys, but I don't think another
> wiki is required.

It's simple really - I don't think we should allow unmoderated,
anonymous content on the postgresql.org site. Requiring an email
address slightly raises the bar, but offers little overall
protection. The bar right now is a loose web of trust - "Does
somebody know who this person is? Okay, let them edit the wiki"
The ad-hoc mechanism for implementing this could be improved,
of course, but this was an experiment. A successful one, as it
turns out: it has shown that having a wiki is an excellent way
of allowing community collaboration.

- --
Greg Sabino Mullane greg(at)turnstep(dot)com
PGP Key: 0x14964AC8 200708050803
http://biglumber.com/x/web?pk=2529DF6AB8F79407E94445B4BC9B906714964AC8
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iD8DBQFGtbzzvJuQZxSWSsgRA7B7AKC7aQ75XrHhXr5e1S+B70Q2uCAHBACg5Pff
RuMyCJakuiV32BnQO/dcExA=
=rIe8
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Greg Sabino Mullane wrote:
>
>> I fully support the use of a wiki for that (a good
>> example is Greg Smith's recent pg/my comparison).
>> I *do not* support the use of a wiki for final
>> publication of anything aimed at end users.
>
> Well, that's a problem - Google doesn't really care where
> on the postgresql.org we stick something, or whether
> it is a wiki or a techdocs or a simple HTML page.

We could always stick a robots.txt in there to make google stay away. Or
perhaps somehow changed the header/footer of the pages?

>> I also have no issue experimenting with permissions to
>> help Josh and the advocacy guys, but I don't think another
>> wiki is required.
>
> It's simple really - I don't think we should allow unmoderated,
> anonymous content on the postgresql.org site. Requiring an email
> address slightly raises the bar, but offers little overall
> protection. The bar right now is a loose web of trust - "Does
> somebody know who this person is? Okay, let them edit the wiki"
> The ad-hoc mechanism for implementing this could be improved,
> of course, but this was an experiment.

Perhaps it just needs to be documented better? As in today if you don't
know who "Greg" and "Neil" are, you don't know how to get permissions..

> A successful one, as it
> turns out: it has shown that having a wiki is an excellent way
> of allowing community collaboration.

Absolutely.

//Magnus

"Greg Sabino Mullane" <greg(at)turnstep(dot)com> writes:

> It's simple really - I don't think we should allow unmoderated,
> anonymous content on the postgresql.org site.

Do you object to the mail archives? Our mailing lists are fundamentally
anonymous as well.

--
Gregory Stark
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: RIPEMD160

>> It's simple really - I don't think we should allow unmoderated,
>> anonymous content on the postgresql.org site.

> Do you object to the mail archives? Our mailing lists are fundamentally
> anonymous as well.

No, I do not object, but I don't think the comparison is valid. A wiki
page is at a set address whose content changes over time. Google[1] and many
other pages link to them: I'd prefer not to see a pornographic image show
up when someone visits a web page on *.postgresql.org. Mailing list emails,
by contrast, are individual and do not change over time.

[1] http://searchengineland.com/070516-164154.php

- --
Greg Sabino Mullane greg(at)turnstep(dot)com
PGP Key: 0x14964AC8 200708061336
http://biglumber.com/x/web?pk=2529DF6AB8F79407E94445B4BC9B906714964AC8
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iD8DBQFGt1ytvJuQZxSWSsgRA3AtAJ4u+AVKTppe03k1tWCPLYEpBS/6pwCfcKUG
r+ZwRjPE9+88BhB0UGy8HVs=
=cVdz
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----