On Mon, Oct 5, 2009 at 3:02 PM, Phil Schaffner <Philip.R.Schaffner at nasa.gov> wrote: > Ralph Angenendt wrote on 10/05/2009 04:40 AM: >> Um. Since when does it, when you want to make a fix? As said, there >> are around 80 people who already are able to fix things all over the >> place. Which does not require to send a mail anywhere, but just making >> a fix. > > I seem to recall someone pointing out that few of those 80 are active. > Why not bring in some fresh blood and new energy? ?If 80 have the > privilege why not 85 or 100? ?If the view is that there are too many > open accounts with global edit rights, then restrict those that have not > contributed in X years, but lower the barriers to entry for new > contributors. I am adding new users to that on a permanent basis - normally you are on there after you created your second article or have had some interesting suggestions on here. >?Dag's point that more openness could be a good thing seems pretty > clear to me. Okay, than I did misunderstand that. Mind, that I'm not native speaker either. Then *everybody* please be not vague: How would openness work in your view a) without compromising the wiki's spam-free-ness (?) b) with making people adhere to a CC license beforehand c) with making sure that the content quality doesn't get worse (I think we have a rather high quality at the moment) d) with making sure that there's no "off topic" content I'd really be interested to hear that. I have a view how that can work, but that is a view which still makes some people "better" than other people - and will create more work for them. I know we had that discussion about a year and a half ago, and I have some ideas - but the result from last year was, that there would be around 5 to 6 people who watch over the content. I think that that isn't enough. Convince me (and possibly others, but if I'm convinced I'll push that further) =:) Cheers, Ralph
