From: "Ralph Angenendt", Monday, October 05, 2009 9:54 AM >... >Okay, than I did misunderstand that. Mind, that I'm not native speaker >either. > >Then *everybody* please be not vague: I think my last post might have fallen in to the vague category... I was trying to say that as one of those new members, I was trying to ease into the job. New members are being added... >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. >... From my point of view, the process wasn't onerous in itself. The only issues I had/have are the sparse guidelines of acceptable content and the voracity of the reaction, by some, to what they viewed as unacceptable content. It appears there are multiple standards for content. I don't have a problem with easing people into the 'trusted' position of the edit group. It is already possible to get a user account and access to create a user page with little 'qualification'. For new conttibutors, this provides a sandbox to both say something about themselves and produce content, or spam. For aspiring content producers that suggest modification to existing content, those changes should go through the page's creator or maintainer or someone else in the edit group. If they describe the changes on this list, it should be a simple matter for someone else to implement or possibly give them access to that page. Once those people have sufficient history, I assume adding them to the edit group so they can make changes directly would follow. The only people excluded by the current process are the impatient. This is a long-term project. Impatience is for more transitory media, like on-line chat and lists/forums. The world isn't going to end if a page isn't updated or access isn't granted for a few days.
