Talk:Submitting Information

Article Moderation and Ownership

I think we need to discuss moderation and article ownership.

My vote is that the original author of an article controls the content. Any appeals from disgruntled contributors goes to the gbook comittee. The g book comitte also approves new pages. I'm a bit worried about the wiki being used more for self publicists , be trivialised etc so we need some controls!

Chris Wyatt said, "I'm a bit worried about the wiki being used more for self publicists , be trivialised etc..."

or maybe even poetry! ;)

Chris: Well, that's not really how a wiki works... in its purest form there are no controls at all and the regular users just keep an eye on things and keep them ship shape. This actually seems to sencourage users to edit (look at wikipedia). There are discussion pages in which people can discuss changes and we should encourage users to use these before going ahead and making substantial changes.

I've been speaking to Alan about this and we agree that, at least for a while, only a select few will have edit permissions. This will give us time to establish a 'polite editing culture' to which new users will feel obliged to follow. Perhaps we can stage the opening up of the wiki in a gradual way.

Even so, it is very easy indeed to revert any change anyone has made. It's a simple matter of clicking a few buttons. We can still keep moderators and require them to actively encourage the correct 'ethos', we can 'lock' abitrary pages so that only those of a certain privilege level can edit them, and we can (as a last resort) ban troublesome users. --Tim Hoddy 14:58, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

we can 'lock' abitrary pages so that only those of a certain privilege level can edit them. I like this idea. Lock article page but able to edit discussion page would be good too.--Alan rosier 10:15, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Alan, that's possible and not as awkward to set up as I first thought. We would still need to watch the discussion pages very carefully if (and probably only if) we allow anyone to edit these pages. The problem will be spam and probably lots of it. --Tim Hoddy 11:12, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Just set this up with the Barland Quarry page. Editing is now locked for everyone except the SuperUser. Its discussion page is freely editable by other registered users. The nice thing is that we can promote arbitrary users to lock and unlock pages themselves. Take a look. I'll revert it in a day or two. --Tim Hoddy 11:30, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

This may be useful reading; especially about how a wiki 'community' can correct errors or remove malicious edits. Wiki

Interesting article. I think that;

1) Prior to any submission on a discussion page a user must register on the wiki. A full real name user name and e-mail address requirement is best. I don't think pseudonyms work well.

2) Club members should have this automatic privelidge.

3) Club members should apply for article editing rights.

4) Any new articles must be approved by the guidebook/wiki committee.

Thoughts about this tiered approach?--Alan rosier 16:14, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Alan... good points!

"1) Prior to any submission on a discussion page a user must register on the wiki. A full real name user name and e-mail address requirement is best. I don't think pseudonyms work well. "

Agree 100% with that. In addition we might ask new users (non-members) to write a short account of themselves and what they can contribute. If they find that a chore, then we may assume that writing on discussion pages, and following the protocols is even more of a chore for them.

"2) Club members should have this automatic privelidge.""

Yes.

"3) Club members should apply for article editing rights."

Yes.

"4) Any new articles must be approved by the guidebook/wiki committee."

Probably, but I'm less than 100% on that and could easily be persuaded otherwise.

I'm also quite happy for non-members as editors too, though of course we would have to think carefully about this. E.g. A non member who is developing an obscure/new crag. Why not get him to think of our wiki as the authoritative and "primary place to publish"?

--Tim Hoddy 16:52, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Point 1 - yes, by all means a little more information, as long as it's not too much like an interrogation.

Point 4 - I'm a little concerned that this could become a replica of the guidebook without any approval of articles.

"I'm a little concerned that this could become a replica of the guidebook without any approval of articles."

Well, I think that would be inevitable without strong club-led moderation. A good set of moderators would be a pre-condition to opening up to everyone.

If it is opened up slowly, we can see how it goes and the picture will slowly emerge of what needs to be done. Maybe there'll never be a need to open it up like this. The decision could be made in the future.

--Tim Hoddy 20:52, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Lets do it then.

Anything we should put away for the time being?--Alan rosier 21:58, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes. I think some of the discussion pages are more relevant to setting up the wiki rather than updating crag info. Perhaps these pages should be backed up and then edited so that they contain only material relevant to future editors. What do you think?

I'm waiting for a reply from BlueLinux. As as I get the shell account I'll do the upgrade and then we'll give read perms to everyone. I'm a little concerned about the possibility of spam on the discussion pages. Perhaps we should just do it and see what happens.

--Tim Hoddy 23:02, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, restart the discussion pages. And I'm not sure what spam we are likely to get. Lets see.--Alan rosier 08:20, 2 February 2009 (UTC)