"Blaine Buxton" <blainebuxton at hotmail.com> wrote:
> ====
> 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? 

Hi, Blaine!

Your "trusted/not trusted" model is actually pretty close to what I
suggested earlier, with the exception being that my model would give
every "trusted" member review/release privileges.

All the best,

Gary Fisher


> 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