On Wed, Dec 08, 2004 at 07:29:19AM -0800, Mark Knecht wrote: Aren't there managed/moderated wikis that allow you exactly what you want? (saying Nay/yea) I'd be happy to help as well, where I'm able. and I say wiki.votes++, (not trying to convince you...:) cheers, tobias. -- ThatThatThatThatThatCan'tYearstreamAllcommandSOFTWAREdirectoryREADMEvariouscodePlayerAudioBeautiful

On Wed, Dec 08, 2004 at 08:48:28AM -0800, Mark Knecht wrote: Edits by anonymous users needs to be acked by someone, registered users edits go up immediatly IIUC. I think this is roughly how wikipedia works. Yes, you can do this, wiki have text codes to do things like bullets, and you can have macros or something similar (e. for including photos in wikipedia). - Steve

On Wednesday 08 December 2004 12:26, Austin wrote: We're using TWiki for the Gambas project's documentation as well ( http://www.binara.com/gambas-wiki/ ) and after a year and a half or so of use, it's worked out pretty nicely. Anonymous users can read, search, etc., and registered users can edit. It uses RCS to save every version of every file so you can roll back changes if it's abused. Rob

Steve Harris wrote: That might be how wikipedia works (I haven't tried it in quite a while) but the more traditional wiki way is that user's edits go up immediately (some wikis can require registration, but the more wiki way is not to require registration). Then (in the traditional wiki way) the community around the wiki takes care of vetting the content -- if someone starts putting up trash (I mean real trash, "graffiti", or similar), in an active wiki community, somebody will delete that (revert the page, or similar). If it's just "poor" content, somebody will come along to improve it. It doesn't work 100%, but I am pleasantly surprised at how well it does work on active wikis. (WikiLearn is not quite active enough to benefit (fully) from those effects.) (sorry--I deleted the attribution for the following:) Most wikis have some sort of consistent look built in (header, footer, maybe sidebar, ...). In addition, some other wikis (like TWiki) also support content templates which help everyone organize their content in a similar fashion. (In a content template (on TWiki) I typically have some (recommended) headings often including a Contributors and Contents heading (with the "code" (%TOC%) to automatically create a Table of Contents). I've used TWiki for quite a while and have liked it. I guess I'm starting to grow discontented--WikiLearn is currently hosted as one TWiki web on the twiki.org site (hosted at Sourceforge). With somewhere around 2000 pages (iirc), some features of TWiki work frustratingly slow (like the More commands that allow you, among other things to rename and "reparent" a page--they fill a drop down box with the name of all pages in the web and it takes a while to do that for 2000 pages.) I need to either move to a different host where I can divide WikiLearn into multiple (and smaller) webs, or consider something like writing my own wiki (which is an itch I have to a certain extent). (TWiki is one of the few wikis that supports multiple webs (think, but don't say in front of a twiki guru, directories or folders). In a similar vein, twiki calls pages: "topics".) Nevertheless, I recommend TWiki. There are some drawbacks. It has a reputation as being difficult to install, and as a Linux newbie (it can be installed on Windows also, but when I was paying attention, that had its share of problems as well) a few years ago, I found that to be the case. There have been improvements since then, but I haven't tried an install recently. TWiki keeps a revision history of each page, so it is fairly easy to revert a page (but, unless I'm overlooking something added recently, it is a copy and paste operation). On Sourceforge one of the /tmp directories occasionally runs out of space, and that seems to disable the recording of page history. Anyway, just thought I'd throw my $.02 (or .03, .04, or whatever) in. Randy Kramer

Hi, i think a wiki would be an overhaul for Dave's pages. I think it has not been mentioned here that most of the work is done by regurarly watching sites that are known to be good sources of links plus occasionally noting additional links for new apps you stumble upon. Basically it's all about constantly monitoring the scene. Dave's site is basically a link directory(lots of those MySQL+PHP based directories are available on the net) plus some additional info. The crucial thing in order to get people into submitting stuff easily is to let them post anonymously. So basically you'd post: * name of application * link * category It would be much easier to moderate such submissions. You'd gain (almost) instant updates, and it's all automated so no manual editing of pages. Marek

Mark Knecht wrote: First, thanks to all who replied. Alas, I really don't want to change the format, not at this time. It would mean a measure of work I'm not prepared to do at this time. OTOH, it's clear that the wiki is a preferred Way. So my shortest response is: Grab a section or sections from the Linux soundapps site and use it as a starting point in a standalone wiki form. If you want the original HTML, it's free for the asking/taking. If enough people actually did that, with an agreed-upon wiki format, then eventually they could merge (re-merge?) into a spanking new wiki-ized Linux soundapps site. If that should happen, then at some point someone is going to have to assume managerial duties, which may be considerable. It seems that there are enough wiki-savvy souls on this list to start a working group for this project. Btw, Mark: My site is not "a bit old school", it's *profoundly* Old School. :) And if anyone feels like maintaining a section of the current pages, let me know. Best, dp

Dave, thanks for all your work over the years on the site! I, too, think a wiki is great. I have seen more than a few wikis end up being more work when they are wide open due to wiki spam and graffiti. In time, our wiki will also be targeted and we don't want that to happen. I really like the idea of a core group of moderators (it could be 50 people - it doesn't have to be a small group) that approve all anonymous changes. There may be other schemes as well; we should do _something_ because otherwise it can be a problem. But I still think the wiki is a great approach, even if it does deviate from the "true wiki spirit" and angers the volcanos in hawaii. I'm on a "just do it" kick lately so I hope nobody minds that I've set up just such a wiki to get us started. Dave understandably doesn't have the time or experience with wikis to bother with it, so I figured we should get one up and running and get the content moved over, and if it meets Dave's approval at that point it can be moved to his server(s), or some other more appropriate place. So pick a page and port it. http://hans.fugal.net:2500 On Wed, 08 Dec 2004 13:17:44 -0500, Dave Phillips <dlphilp(a)bright.net> wrote: -- De gustibus non disputandum est.

On Wed Dec 8 21:22:42 2004 Dave Phillips wrote: Now that apparently something's happening just a short reminder of a little script I once wrote: <http://eca.cx/lad/2004/04/0286.html> I'm not sure whether it still works the way it used to but maybe it can somehow help. -- Jan Weil http://linuxaudioblog.jawebada.de

While I agree that a Wiki will provide the best option for the pages in the long term, they still require quite some time to set up everything correctly especially with some plain-html mirror sites. If you want to make a quick start I would suggest you put your pages into a cvs server, with a closed user base where people can make changes. Then you can add a little cron job on your web servers which checkout the cvs regularily. If there's nothing to update, that should not consume too much traffic (and I think an update every few hours should suffice). If you don't have any CVS running yet, I could/would donate an cvs server which is located in Germany and decently connected (but as the cvs server must not be the web server, that should be no real bottleneck). -- ---> doj / cubic ----> http://cubic.org/~doj -----> http://llg.cubic.org

I know many of you don't like registration but I really think it is the simplest way to avoid spam and graphities. Let's say it loudly: registration means writing once in every session (and when you register) your name and a password! And now at WikiLearn, you don't need even a valid email (even if they ask for it...) to register. On the other hand, I think you could continue those pages as a subtopic of LinuxAudio at: http://twiki.org/cgi-bin/viewauth/Wikilearn/LA_LinuxAudio ( but ask before Randy or me, because we are not 100% about the name of the pages now.... maybe we will finally call it: http://twiki.org/cgi-bin/viewauth/Wikilearn/LinuxAudio (my wish) ) It's already hosted and works great. If you think that something should be changed tell us your opinions and let's build one single site improved by all of us. However suggestions like "non-registration" won't be accepted so if you don't like TWiki, we will link your page and it will be also fine. What do you think about it? I've already begun the "SoundCards" topic if you want to see how the syntax looks like... see at LinuxAudio List of topics: "Sound cards - Real-life experiences and annotations" <http://twiki.org/cgi-bin/viewauth/Wikilearn/LA_SC_SoundCards> En/na Hans Fugal ha escrit:

On Friday 10 Dec 2004 09:42, Alexandre Prokoudine wrote: How about allowing unregistered users, but their submissions require approval, whereas registered user's submissions go straight through? Seems to cater for both sides reasonably well and makes it harder for spammers. ~Dave -- Dave Silvester Music Technology Junkie | Rentable Website Monkey http://www.mu-sly.co.uk | http://www.rentamonkey.com

On Friday 10 Dec 2004 10:51, Alexandre Prokoudine wrote: In which case... register! ;-) ~Dave -- Dave Silvester Music Technology Junkie | Rentable Website Monkey http://www.mu-sly.co.uk | http://www.rentamonkey.com

On Fri, 10 Dec 2004 11:59:54 +0100, MarC wrote mediawiki (http://wikipedia.sourceforge.net/) is the one that the wikipedia uses, and looks the most flash and professional I think. It also deals with all these registration and anti spamming issues I should think (not having used it) this is important, otherwise you end up with wiki that looks like this: http://projects.dorkbot.org/rd04/wiki/FrontPage I also feel it's pertinent to shamelessly plug the pawfaliki at this point too: http://www.pawfal.org/index.php?page=PawfalIki cheers, dave

On Fri, 2004-10-12 at 10:19 +0100, MarC wrote: Why isn't Wikipedia full of spam? You don't need to register to contribute there. -DR-

On Tuesday 07 December 2004 07:56 am, Ruth A. Kramer wrote: A dedicated community of users will decide what is and isn't graffiti. Wouldn't it be better to give everyone control over their own entries? {Just to stave off a few minor "tiffs"?} -- www.RTaylor-Design.Com

Hans Fugal wrote: Instiki?! I just found that within the last week and I'm impressed so far. I've been trying to find documentation to compare the features to TWiki (I'm pretty sure many are not present), but which might make the difference to me. Also, it's written in Ruby -- and since I want to learn Ruby and possibly write my own wiki like thing in Ruby, the code is probably worthy of study. (And, Word style diffs!!) If you have any pointers to documentation, let me know. (I have reviewed most (maybe all) of the Instiki wiki pages (don't have the URL -- it's on a different machine.) regards, Randy Kramer

On Mon, 06 Dec 2004 10:07:06 -0500, Ruth A. Kramer &lt;rhkramer(a)fast.net&gt; wrote: It's the first wiki I've found that is as simple to set up as a wiki should be. It's also beautiful (not ugly like so many wikis' default styles). I'm a ruby nut too, so it definitely helps that it's written in ruby. No doubt. Check the recent comp.lang.ruby archives - someone wrote a wiki in just a few lines of ruby. (shameless plug) If you want to pick up some ruby and stay more or less on-topic, play with ladspar. It's a ruby API for hosting LADSPA plugins. http://instiki.org is all I've needed. -- De gustibus non disputandum est.