Re: [pgsql-advocacy] We need an Advocacy wiki
От | Tino Wildenhain |
---|---|
Тема | Re: [pgsql-advocacy] We need an Advocacy wiki |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 46B58646.30109@wildenhain.de обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: [pgsql-advocacy] We need an Advocacy wiki (Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net>) |
Ответы |
Re: [pgsql-advocacy] We need an Advocacy wiki
|
Список | pgsql-www |
Magnus Hagander schrieb: ... > Not sure that's a fair count. Looking at the wiki user list there are > certainly 215 accounts. But by my untrained eye, a lot of those look > like automated users created by spam-bots in order to see if they can > create spam-pages. It could be that we have actual users named Zy9Yqd, > Yx9Qbh and Xj0Y6g, but I seriously doubt it. And that's a clear > indication that there are people (or rather, bots) probing the wiki > already trying to post crap. > > >> Can we please just give the public wiki a chance instead of coming up >> with a bunch of reasons it won't work before we've even tried? It's not >> like it's hard to change things later if needed. >> >> (BTW, when I say public wiki I mean one where anyone with an account can >> edit, not one where you don't need an account.) > > As long as that holds, I'm absolutely up for giving it a try. Maybe part > of the disagreement has been from a misunderstanding of what a "public > wiki" is. In my book, a *public* wiki is one that doesn't need a > verified account. (I assume that you refer to verified account above. If > not, I don't agree until you add the word verified) Maybe the users could be created by referral or invitation? This way you would form a little web of trust instead of having almost alien people (or bots) trying to write something related to postgres. Regards Tino
В списке pgsql-www по дате отправления: