[Bf-docboard] an alternative to restricting access

[Alastair Mason]

tragicly i couldn't make the meeting as i was working :(

but restricting access seems redundant.

1) The lay should be standardized but the the "Writers documentation"
contains 9 entries that are rather incoherant, withe the "writers guide
http://mediawiki.blender.org/index.php/Meta/Writer_Guide" the most ovious to
click on being useless to read.

if you want to standardise the lay improve the specifications, so people
know whats happening and were the wiki is going.

2) reviewing edits
Its not that difficault you, look at the users name who editored, scroll
down untill you find a diffrent uses name or a relively old date and click
"compare" not that challenging. I can't accept this a a reson, i think its
actuly faster than the whole patch system and anyone can check earlier
versions.

>Unfortunately, Blenderwiki will not operate like wikipedia.  The ideals of
>a wiki don't stand up so well in a small userbase.  So whilst there may be
>a dedicated team of editors, we will never have the continual upkeep that
>something like wikipedia has.
3) what the base of this arguement? it just takes longer.

On 11/6/06, bsod at hiddenworlds.org <bsod at hiddenworlds.org> wrote:
>
> > I'm sorry I didn't make the meeting (I won't be able to make next
> > Saturday's meeting either), but I read over the log.  I'd like to throw
> > my two cents in as well.
> >
> >> 3. Wiki writers
> >> The current way of granting writing rights won't work in longer term.
> It
> >> was decided that granting of writing rights should be changed towards
> >> merit based system similar to CVS commit rights in Blender source. This
> >> means that the new users provide "patches" as in additions to the wiki
> >> that will be reviewed by the wiki team. To provide easier reviewing, it
> >> was suggested that a tracker should be created for this. The tracker
> >> could also contain work list. It could be used to assign work to the
> >> writers and to coordinate efforts.
> >
> > I agree with the previous few responses to the above quote: restricting
> > access is detrimental to the wiki.  I propose 1) give free access to
> > everyone, and 2) have a group of editors review the 'Recent Changes' to
> > the wiki . . . the same group that would have been reviewing patches
> > anyway.  If, on the odd chance, someone's contributions are harmful to
> > the wiki, those editors should reserve the right to restrict access to
> > that user.  And to actually do something about this rather than spout
> > empty complaints :), I'll volunteer to be part of that editing group.
> >
>
> As I mentioned in my last post, this issue is not so much problematic
> contributions, it's the continual pollution of the article structure.  At
> some point this needs to be addressed, or all the time that this group of
> editors have is going to be spent on rearranging the wiki structure.
>
> Unfortunately, Blenderwiki will not operate like wikipedia.  The ideals of
> a wiki don't stand up so well in a small userbase.  So whilst there may be
> a dedicated team of editors, we will never have the continual upkeep that
> something like wikipedia has.
>
> I'm really not sure that complete free access is a good idea, however
> simply reviewing the Recent Changes list is probably not going to work
> simply because everytime a page is saved a new entry is made in the Recent
> Changes menu. Personally I save every few minutes while working on the
> wiki and from having looked at the recent changes page, other people do
> too.  Maybe another option would be to have new writers place a category
> descriptor at the bottom of each page to they modify until the
> admins/editors are happy that they are competent.  Something like
> [[Category:NewWriterReview]] I suppose.
>
> Ultimately the biggest problem we have is that new people are not familiar
> with the structure and namespace layout, and they don't read the writing
> instructions, especially if they are already familiar with mediawiki, and
> I feel this is something we need to address.
>
> > I wholeheartedly agree with the need to assign work, or have some sort
> > of sign-up sheet.  Ideally, readers should be able to tag a page as
> > 'incomplete' and then that page automatically shows up on the To Do
> > list.  That way, writers just check the To Do list, starting from the
> > top, and slowly crank through it.
>
> I've actually started implementing this plan.  I've created a template
> that can be embedded with {{Incomplete}} notation which puts a small
> warning at the top of the page saying that it's up for review and adds it
> to the Review category.  I created this to start removing the many
> {{Warning}} template instances all through the wiki which tell people not
> to edit the page because they are currently being worked on.  I've sifted
> through most of those pages now and removed the Warning template and
> replaced it with the Incomplete one if the page hasn't been modified for
> some time. No point restricting editing if no one is working on them.
>
> This way we can check the review list by going
> tohttp://mediawiki.blender.org/index.php/Category:Review which will be
> especially useful for tracking areas that need work, unfinished parts, and
> for meeting discussions.
>
> If a page is not incomplete but needs review anyway, add
> [[Category:Review]] o the bottom of the page so it shows up in the review
> list but doesn't show the Incomplete banner.
>
> If you do either of these things, please make a note in the relevant
> Discussion page for why the article is on the review list.  That way when
> we do come to review it in meetings etc, we know what the issue is.
>
> >
> > What about prioritizing that To Do list?  How about this: any wiki
> > reader could check the To Do page, and give a To Do item a bump up in
> > priority (I need info about Pivot Points, but it's near the end of the
> > list! *bump*).  I'm not sure what kind of voting functionality the wiki
> > has to implement this.  But if we had something along these lines, the
> > user community would determine what is important to write, and we
> > writers can better focus our efforts.
> >
>
> I don't know how this can be achieved, mediawiki has no inbuilt provision
> for this, though an extension could be built to handle it.  I suggested in
> the wikipeople meeting that perhaps a tracker was a good idea, essentially
> just a bug tracker so that issues can be reviewed to editors and
> prioritised.
>
> -Tim
> _______________________________________________
> Bf-docboard mailing list
> Bf-docboard at projects.blender.org
> http://projects.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-docboard
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://projects.blender.org/pipermail/bf-docboard/attachments/20061106/e3930450/attachment.htm