on Sat, Nov 05, 2005 at 07:16:37AM +0900, Micheal E Cooper (mcooper@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx) wrote: > Regarding requiring user registration to write to a wiki, Michael Shigorin > wrote: > > > -- then exactly, ultimate trust just isn't for this world. > > (unless you don't belong to it...) > > That is exactly what I am saying. I think that the person who objected to > requiring authentication on a wiki is thinking of Wikipedia and similar > projects that glorify allowing anyone to modify the pages. Wikipedia has a very large and active community, tends to catch gross abuse rapidly, does have controls (including freezing pages and spam detection), and has been creating privileged classes of users. There's a vast difference between discovering a cool and largely workable concepts, and clinging irrationally to an unworkable ideal rather than a pragmatic adaptation of same. > But that is not wiki itself. Restricting the community of users is not > against wiki. It is just against some of the more famous uses of wiki > technology, like wikipedia. And even that's a myth. > For myself, I would just turn on authentication and leave it at that. > If a user has something to contribute, then he or she will register. > Call me ungenerous. I do same, block abusive IPs, and still find there's additional steps I'd prefer to take. But there's only so many hours. Peace. -- Karsten M. Self <kmself@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> http://kmself.home.netcom.com/ What Part of "Gestalt" don't you understand? Integrity, we've heard of it: http://www.theregister.co.uk/
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature