Re: wiki "abuse"

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Mon, 9 Aug 2010, A Large Angry SCM wrote:

On 08/09/2010 07:00 PM, Johannes Schindelin wrote:
On Tue, 10 Aug 2010, Felipe Contreras wrote:

Here's a useful Wikipedia guideline: assume good faith:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Assume_good_faith

For the dear love of God.

Just assume -- hypothetically -- for one second that you, Felipe
Contreras, tried to create a user page on
http://subversion.tigris.org/wiki/ reading like this:

-- snip --
Felipe E. Contreras, a proud Git user.

* [http://felipec.wordpress.com/ Felipe Contreras]
** [http://felipec.wordpress.com/tag/git/ Keep an open mind]
** [http://whygitisbetterthanx.com/ Git is better]
-- snap --

only that the last link was to one of your blog posts and was not well
researched.

If you still think that such a completely unbiased and uncontroversial
user page was a good idea, well, you should take over the monitoring of
the Git Wiki, I guess, and make sure you remove all link spam. Actually, I
like that idea. Can you do that, please? Can you watch the recent changes
of the Git Wiki and keep it a place where information is king? Thank you
so much in advance!

Dscho: Thank you for the excellent job you _are_ doing keeping the spam on the git wiki under control. Please continue.

Warthog9: Please take this as another vote to disable the user pages.

Everyone else: Most of this thread was/is well intentioned but there is a significant problem with spam on high profile wiki sites (like ours) and the information readily available (from what I've read on this thread) to the _volunteer_ wiki admin slash spam fighter fit the pattern of a spammer. If you believe that Johannes is not doing an acceptable job policing the wiki _AND_ you are willing and able to do the job then speak up with that information.

the big problem is not that his page was removed, there's some problem around the fact that there was not hint to him that it wasn't allowed.

the big problem that I think many people see is that when he asked the admin why it was removed, instead of being given an explination (or ideally, beping pointed to an explination) his questions was deleted as being 'admin abuse' and he was banned, still without explination.

This thread has explored why the content he posted was not desrirable, but if you are banning someone, you should not assume that they know why you are banning them.

David Lang
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html


[Index of Archives]     [Linux Kernel Development]     [Gcc Help]     [IETF Annouce]     [DCCP]     [Netdev]     [Networking]     [Security]     [V4L]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Linux SCSI]     [Fedora Users]