One could design and implement a voting mechanism or moderation system as
used by slashdot (see http://slashdot.org/faq/com-mod.shtml#cm600 )

This could also solve another problem (my opinion). Currrently no ranking of
pages is possible. Garbage and well-maintained pages are all the same.

Andreas

----- Original Message -----
From: "Stephen Pair" <spair at advantive.com>
To: <squeak-dev at lists.squeakfoundation.org>
Sent: Tuesday, July 16, 2002 9:41 PM
Subject: RE: Swiki locked


> I wonder if this problem could ultimately be solved using some sort of
> web of trust relationships?  Here's how it might work:
>
>   - when a Swiki is created, the creator is issued a key that can be
> used to edit the Swiki
>   - others that would like to edit the Swiki can only do so by
> requesting a key from someone that already has a key (initially just he
> creator, but soon, there would be many people with keys)
>   - any key could be traced all the way back to the creator of the Swiki
>   - any key can be revoked at any time, eliminating the possibility of
> that key being used to edit the Swiki
>
> And, finally, since you must contact an existing editor of a Swiki in
> order to get a key, an abuser would have a hard time continuing to do
> their dirty deeds after they've been identified.  In fact, since they
> have to make direct contact with someone else before making their first
> edits, it may eliminate the problem entirely.
>
> The only downside (aside from implementation issues) is that it might be
> enough trouble that some potential legitimate editors might turn away
> rather than bother with getting a key.
>
> - Stephen
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: squeak-dev-admin at lists.squeakfoundation.org
> > [mailto:squeak-dev-admin at lists.squeakfoundation.org] On
> > Behalf Of John Hinsley
> > Sent: Tuesday, July 16, 2002 3:25 PM
> > To: squeak-dev at lists.squeakfoundation.org
> > Subject: Re: Swiki locked
> >
> >
> > On Tuesday 16 Jul 2002 6:50 pm, Michael Rueger wrote:
> > > John Hinsley wrote:
> > > > Has Mark received any response yet? If the domain isn't
> > responding,
> > > > I'd be inclined to call in the Fibies (is it federal?) and block
> > > > them anyway. The
> > >
> > //snip//
> > >
> > > I'm all for setting a simple password, these attacks will
> > not go away
> > > and we can consider ourselves lucky that these aren't real attacks
> > > (yet).
> >
> > Can I suggest something a little different?
> >
> > As an interim measure we block that domain (that is, someone
> > at Gatech asks
> > the roots to block it). This should stop Snoodman for the
> > time being and may
> > irritate the domain into doing something.
> >
> > Long term, we look at better controls for the Swiki. I'd
> > suggest that only the
> > administrator and the original author be allowed to lock pages.
> >
> > Reasons? Issuing passwords leaves open the possibility that
> > someone may get
> > hold of one. Unless we have a secure means of distributing
> > them we only grant
> > ourselves the illusion of security.
> >
> > Graffitti is an annoying, but easy enough to correct issue.
> > If a Snood creates
> > a page, admin can zap it. If a Snood alters someone else's
> > page, we can do a
> > rollback.
> >
> > Cheers
> >
> > John
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>