On 8/24/05, Christoph Eckert <ce(a)christeck.de> wrote: done. -- visit http://dillenburg.dyndns.org/~arnold/ --- Wenn man mit Raubkopien Bands wie Brosis oder Britney Spears wirklich verhindern könnte, würde ich mir noch heute einen Stapel Brenner und einen Sack Rohlinge kaufen.

Emanuel Rumpf <x(a)branwelt.de> writes: No, it's not; as you have to be registered; something I don't time to fiddle around with. All these irritating little issues to my workflow. I don't have time to play with stupid things;). I'll rather choose to not use this wiki. -- Esben Stien is b0ef@e s a http://www. s t n m irc://irc. b - i . e/%23contact [sip|iax]: e e jid:b0ef@ n n

Lee Revell <rlrevell(a)joe-job.com> writes: Wikipedia seems to be doing great. As long as you have an history option to roll back and a mechanism to detect and temporarily ban ip's based on anomaly behavior, like updating 30 pages in 2 seconds, I think a wiki works. If I look at f.ex the page for synthesis and I see viagra there, I'll just revert the page to whatever suits me and the next person will see the page as that. There is really no maintenance to a wiki. I don't want to come off rude and I can't say that I've tried myself to run a wiki, but it surely seems to be possible, thinking about all the public wikis' I've visited. A wiki that requires registration hurts us more than spam, in my opinion. -- Esben Stien is b0ef@e s a http://www. s t n m irc://irc. b - i . e/%23contact [sip|iax]: e e jid:b0ef@ n n

nigel henry wrote: amen! but i'll agree with anyone who makes such frequent use of one of my favourite words: scum ;) shayne

Well, the need to register really is a blocker for many people. Even if I already have registered, I'll not know the login data as soon as I want to contribute something. So I guess you're unfortunately right. Best regards ce

On Sun, Aug 28, 2005 at 08:48:39PM +0200, Christoph Eckert wrote: Cookies.

Christoph Eckert wrote: wouldn't your browser know the login data? I understand that you might not want your bank account info in browser password management but IMO it's great for this kind of not-so-important stuff like various forums, websites that require registration etc. Or woudl you be browsing from different browser/machine each time you'd go to the wiki? erik

On Sunday 28 August 2005 18:21, Esben Stien wrote: Right. I guess Wikipedia has plenty of staff to keep an eye on it. If you're like me and leave it for weeks at a time, it's terribly distressing to come back and find it covered in graffitti. Yeah, you can roll it back, sure, but you have to be really on the case with this or you quickly lose your readership. -- cheers, tim hall http://glastonburymusic.org.uk/tim

On Sunday 28 August 2005 05:16, Esben Stien wrote: Great, I shall sign up then. ;] -- cheers, tim hall http://glastonburymusic.org.uk/tim

Randy Kramer <rhkramer(a)gmail.com> writes: Maybe it is, but I don't think it's public enough when you have to be part of a group. I don't think this is the way of the wiki-fu. A wiki is supposed to be quick and informal; something I can't get to fit with registration. No matter how you argue it, you still spend some amount of time on it (becoming part of the group and identifying to it). This initial process of registration is enough to make many additions to the wiki not put up. You loose the vibe and have to do something that is really not necessary. Someone from the public should be able to just snap in without being part of a group (registered) I think putting up registration as a way to get less spam is the wrong way of attacking the problem. Yes, I see no point in having any registration for something like writing on a blackboard (below those who wrote something there before). You should not be able to edit a forum. You may choose to mark the entry as editable with a password; I see nothing wrong with options. No No Public postings are not allowed. Maybe it would be better you say anonymous- or non registered postings are not allowed. I can't really argue that it's not public as I'm here and I'm part of the public. I don't know what else to call it, really, but it's not enough public, in my opinion. I think it should be gateway'ed to a newsserver and that public posting should be allowed. Just like that kid the other day, with the SRC question. It's really bad that he had to first register just to post 3 posts and then leave. If it was really public, he could have just sent the mail to the list. I think registration is a barrier many times and that we loose more than we gain. The option of a mailinglist surely requires that you register your email; how else would the mails arrive? It's the wrong way to attack the problem of spam by putting up registration requirement, in my opinion. If spam gets through your filters, there is something wrong with your filters and you should fix them. You can never stop the concept of people sending you things. Well, a public list can really not be filtered in any way by any other person than yourself. You need to get everything that was posted to this public list. Like I said before, it really can't be a public list if you can't see everything that was posted by the public. Any content filtered in a public fora should be available so a list that has a filter before it reaches the public cannot be considered public, in my opinion. A wiki would have these data available so that you may read the viagra ads and anything else that had been removed if you like. -- Esben Stien is b0ef@e s a http://www. s t n m irc://irc. b - i . e/%23contact [sip|iax]: e e jid:b0ef@ n n