From: "Ralph Angenendt", Tuesday, October 06, 2009 7:22 AM >On Mon, Oct 5, 2009 at 7:05 PM, Ed Heron <Ed at heron-ent.com> wrote: >> 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. >This is true. While I'm for rather more content (as long as quality >doesn't go down) others have a different view of that. And I think we >have to find some common ground here. It appears that the people who are preferring the more restricted content guidelines are saying they will accept content separation. But having 2 separate content systems seems redundant. Is there a way to have a section (directory) of the wiki that is core and an expanded section? This might satisfy both sides? >> 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. >This is roughly how it is working at the moment, if I didn't misunderstand >you. I'm summarizing intentionally. I don't think there is anything wrong with the current process. Being a recent addition to the 'edit group', even though it took some time to get there, it wasn't too bad. A little patience was all I really needed. Opening up the content to the public could put a rather large burden on the existing admin/edit group. Going through the current process should result in greater longevity of contributors compared to instant edit access. Making edit access easier for people 'passing through' could result in more orphaned content. The only thing that comes to mind is possibly allowing someone to edit a page without committing the changes. These could be the equivalent of submitted patches pending approval.
