On Thu, 8 Dec 2011, Paul Hoffman wrote: > On Dec 8, 2011, at 8:31 AM, David Morris wrote: > > > > > > > On Thu, 8 Dec 2011, Paul Hoffman wrote: > > > >> On Dec 7, 2011, at 6:49 PM, Dave CROCKER wrote: > >> > >>> Actually, I meant wiki according to its classic, collaborative meaning: > >>> > >>> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wiki> > >>> > >>> What you folks are describing is a web page, not really a wiki. > >> > >> Exactly, and that is appropriate for something whose primary target is > >> organizations that are giving large amounts of money and time to the > >> IETF. A "collaborative page" can easily go sideways with contributors > >> who don't understand the parameters of what is meant to be there. In > >> many cases such as WGs, such sideways motion is fine; for a page whose > >> audience are often people who don't know about the IETF but are tasked > >> with deciding whether or not to give us significant financial support. > > > > Perhaps, but in a wiki context repair is easy as any reasonable wiki > > software will provide a history. > > What is the greater additional value of having to have someone who > watches the wiki and reverts changes over that same person being listed > on the static page as "if you have questions or suggestions about this > page, please send mail to <real human's name>"? Difference is whether the community is better served by a fail open or fail closed approach. I don't believe active watching is required. I think the value of informed contributions without waiting for the real human to review and provide the update. Even active review is less henious in terms of work load in a context where we expect updates, even errors, to be contributed with best intentions. A Hybrid is another possiblity ... a 'fact' page with limited edit could be the parent of the community edited content. Certainly not an expensive experiment? > > > In addition, at least one proposal > > was that editing be limited to some form of registered users which > > should also mean that abuse can be mitigated. > > > Please note that I wasn't talking about abuse, I was talking about > misunderstanding. The latter seems very likely in our crowd, given our > propensity to mistake implementations for requirements, for example. _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf