====
some great discussion snipped (sorry!)
====

I like the peer review process to get pages to show up, but I think it's too 
restricting. Why couldn't we go with a model of trust/not trusted? 
Basically, a trusted entity could add pages, changes, etc ad nausem to the 
swiki and they would appear immediately like they do now. But, for untrusted 
entities, they would have to wait after their page submission had been 
reviewed. And after it had been reviewed, the page would be submitted.

Now, the question becomes how do we make entities trusted or untrusted?  I'm 
thinking the model doesn't have to be complicated. How about the 
abbreviations we use for code ala the Who's who page? This way anyone can 
still add to the wiki, but if they are untrusted (not known in the 
community), their pages have to be reviewed.

I know I wouldn't mind if I had to wait a day or two to see pages I changed 
until I earned "trust". I think if someone is providing meaningful content, 
they are very unlikely to do graffiti in the future. And the swiki only adds 
the page once it has been approved. I think this should be an easy extension 
to the swiki framework. Hell, you could even a temp read only area to show 
submissions that hadn't been approved and we could have a group to 
approve/disapprove.

I used to have a review page and I used a similiar model and it worked out 
great. I didn't have to check everyone's submission and once I had gotten a 
few good submissions from someone (ala the reviews wasn't "this sucks"), 
then they were granted "trust". I had little to no problems with this and it 
greatly reduced the number of reviews I had to look at to put up on my web 
page.

I hope this made sense...=) It's the same as the peer review process except 
not EVERY PAGE is reviewed, just the ones from untrusted entities. I don't 
want to lock down the wiki or have passwords, etc. But, we need to be able 
to easily clean up garbage.

Squeak on!

>The open nature of the swiki is wonderful; the hostile nature of the 
>Internet
>is something else.   I don't like the idea of restricting swikis but the
>reality of the internet makes me think otherwise.
>
>We certainly aren't alone in this...I can think of another system I use
>that provides -open shell access- no less...I can't help but think it's
>only a matter of time before they become the next big warez drop. :/
>
>It's an interesting problem--we have a system that is just great for
>collaboration and whatnot...and yet, it exists on a network just as likely
>to be abused as used properly.  Slashdot.org had a similar problem some
>years back...I can't say I totally like the solution they came up with, but
>they -were- forced into coming up with one, just the same.
>
>USENET resembles what we are doing now:  some idiot sends out a pile of
>SPAM, the USENET Cabal responds with cancels.  Mix, repeat ad nauseum.
>Slashdot resembles more of a "peer approval"-style of moderation.
>
>(and my apologies in advance if I sound a little jaded...my years on the
>frontline as a sysadmin has given me a taste for the blood of script 
>kiddies...
>I still have the scars from the whole "Melissa" debacle.. :)
===
more great discussion sniped
===
------------------------------------------------
Blaine Buxton
http://www.mp3.com/blainebuxton
http://home.kc.rr.com/bbuxton
"You're just another soul on parole"-Alice Cooper


_________________________________________________________________
Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com