W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webplatform@w3.org > October 2012

Re: Template protection, template CSS and anonymous edits

From: David Singer <singer@apple.com>
Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2012 08:43:52 +0800
Message-id: <E1D3A33D-8AE8-4AEA-872B-7CA0B2AE43E3@apple.com>
To: public-webplatform@w3.org
It makes sense to me to have some friction on editing templates.  I don't see any reason to have them open to editing without request; we open to the community primarily for content, and making sure the site continues to function can be handled in a smaller group.

I also agree that anonymous mods are not desirable. If we needed to protect people's privacy or anonymity, maybe, but we're not running Wikileaks.

On Oct 17, 2012, at 1:43 , Alex Komoroske <komoroske@google.com> wrote:

> 
> 
> On Tue, Oct 16, 2012 at 10:37 AM, Janet Swisher <jswisher@mozilla.com> wrote:
> Wikipedia (i.e., Wikimedia Foundation) doesn't seem to see any conflict between anonymity and attribution, since they allow anonymous edits and use CC-BY-SA. Anonymous edits on Wikipedia are logged in page history by IP address. Allowing anonymity lowers the barrier to participation to as low as possible. 
> 
> However, raising the barrier to entry even slightly increases the sense of community; requiring contributors to claim an identity enables long term interactions and encourages responsibility for one's actions. I think the benefits of encouraging long-term identities (even if pseudonymous) outweigh the benefits of anonymity. This is also not a context where anonymity is needed for personal safety or confidentiality.
> 
> +1 to this whole paragraph. 
> 
> 
> --Janet
> 
> 
> On 10/16/12 11:41 AM, Scott Rowe wrote:
>> The other issue Tomato raised was that of anonymous edits. Are there implications for content imported from elsewhere under CC-By-SA? What about under the CC-By license for the site generally?
>> 
>> Frankly, I don't think anonymous editing serves to improve collaboration or the quality of the documentation. As a curator and contributor, I'd like to be able to correspond with other editors. I also think that responsibility is the best policy, period.
>> 
>> +Scott
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On Tue, Oct 16, 2012 at 8:33 AM, Alex Komoroske <komoroske@google.com> wrote:
>> We temporarily protected the templates during the launch because they were a high-impact place to spam. I think ultimately they should be open for editing. My only worry is that we rely pretty heavily on templates and someone mucking around in them could inadvertently break some stuff.
>> 
>> One way to handle that might be to have a warning at the top of template pages encouraging folks to ask on IRC or the mailing list before making substantive changes to important templates.
>> 
>> 
>> On Tue, Oct 16, 2012 at 2:33 AM, Chris Mills <cmills@w3.org> wrote:
>> Thanks for the comments Taylor. I can definitely see why you'd want this stuff to be opened up; it would be nice to be able to trust everyone to just make updates to pretty much anything. It would sure make our job easier too ;-)
>> 
>> But I think we do need to exercise a bit of caution in these situations; yes, we can roll back changes, but we would rather limit the amount of changes that we have to keep rolling back. It cna get confusing, mistakes can be made.
>> 
>> A better solution (for the short term anyway), which we are looking into already, is putting everything on github, so people can make changes and send us pull requests. This could be applied to pretty much everything, even template pages and stuff.
>> 
>> It certainly sounds worth checking out the Abuse Filter, and considering anonymous edits, to normal pages at least. Templates and stuff I wouldn't be so sure of.
>> 
>> Best,
>> 
>> Chris
>> 
>> On 15 Oct 2012, at 18:43, Taylor Costello <nottaylorcostello@gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>> > Hi everyone!
>> >
>> > I am hoping to ask to stop protecting templates now that the traffic has calmed down a little. I think anyone should have the ability to edit or see them. I also think the template CSS should be moved to the Common.css for admins to edit, here: http://docs.webplatform.org/w/index.php?title=MediaWiki:Common.css
>> >
>> > If anyone has any objections as to why the templates should remain protected, please tell me! I'm curious to hear your opinions of course, I would just like this project to be open to everyone and it's very hard for anyone to understand the wiki when they can't see the templates.
>> >
>> > I have also heard several ideas on how the CSS should be handled, please note for this topic, I'm only talking about template CSS because it should be something that can be accessed easily.
>> >
>> > Last topic, I want to open up anonymous edits on the wiki. Our Q&A has anonymous posting, but not our wiki! Let me just throw out there that anonymous editing is very easy to watch, any user can revert a bad edit. We also have AbuseFilters that will protect from obvious spam and tag edits for admins to look at. Any admin can add more AbuseFilters in the situation where we need to adjust to new spam methods. There are a ton of benefits to allowing anonymous wiki editing, and most of the negative argument being "to prevent spam".
>> >
>> > You can check out the AbuseFilter here: http://docs.webplatform.org/wiki/Special:AbuseFilter
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
> 
> 

David Singer
Multimedia and Software Standards, Apple Inc.
Received on Wednesday, 17 October 2012 00:44:47 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 8 May 2013 19:57:34 UTC