Annotation of wikisrc/wiki/todo/let_non-developers_contribute_content.mdwn, revision 1.24

1.9       schmonz     1: [[tron]] suggests that non-developers should be able to post content
                      2: to a staging area, to be approved (possibly after editing) by
                      3: developers. [[schmonz]] likes this idea a lot.
                      5: > what about to make a sub-page called e.g. User contributed
                      6: > documentation an give non-developers rw access there while editing
                      7: > other parts(TNF contributed) of wiki will require developers account
                      8: > or possible some sort of bless from a developer. --[[haad]]
1.10      schmonz    10: >> From ikiwiki's PoV, this is equivalent to the Discussion-subpage
                     11: >> approach (merely a tweak to a PageSpec). From the human PoV, it's
                     12: >> a tradeoff. If we make a whole hierarchy world-editable, users will
                     13: >> be able to directly edit any page in that hierarchy, but we'll wind
                     14: >> up with two pages on every topic of interest and readers will have
                     15: >> to check both. A discussion subpage isn't the page itself, but the
                     16: >> relation of the two is never ambiguous.
                     17: >>
                     18: >> Neither approach is ideal. A possible improvement: in addition
1.11      schmonz    19: >> to making making Discussion pages world-editable, use the
                     20: >> [[!iki ikiwiki/directive/inline]] directive on each main topic page to
1.10      schmonz    21: >> include the relevant Discussion subpage below, with a disclaimer
                     22: >> about the provenance of that content. Then both developers and users
                     23: >> can effectively edit the page, and the reader can easily discern
                     24: >> what's what.
                     25: >>
                     26: >> Best if this inlining could be automated somehow, rather than
                     27: >> requiring someone to add a directive to each page. --[[schmonz]]
1.17      schmonz    29: >>> I don't understand why we are making user editing so hard, with
1.22      wiz        30: >>> discussion pages there will be little or no user contribution which
1.17      schmonz    31: >>> is wrong because main point of wiki is to give users power to share
1.22      wiz        32: >>> information not give this power to developers. Let's make part of
1.17      schmonz    33: >>> wiki editable by users to let them contribute their documentation.
1.22      wiz        34: >>> If user will want to make his own page about e.g. using NetBSD as
1.17      schmonz    35: >>> xen server how he will done it with discussion pages ?
1.15      wiki       36: >>>
1.17      schmonz    37: >>> From other POV I looked at FreeBSD wiki and they have developers
                     38: >>> only wiki which can be edited by developers and some small number
                     39: >>> of non developers. --[[haad]]
1.15      wiki       40: 
1.18      wiki       41: >>>> Sorry, I wasn't clear enough. Each page "Foo" will call `inline` to
                     42: >>>> insert its Discussion subpage into itself. The Discussion subpage will
                     43: >>>> continue to exist separately, but its contents will also be included
                     44: >>>> in the Foo page. The Foo page will then have two sections: one
                     45: >>>> that's only editable by developers, and another that's editable by
                     46: >>>> anyone. Developers will use the "Edit" link as normal. For ease of
                     47: >>>> user editing, we'll want to provide an "Edit" link within the
                     48: >>>> user-editable section of the page which leads directly to editing
                     49: >>>> the corresponding Discussion subpage where that content is stored.
                     50: >>>> Either kind of edit will result in an immediate update of the Foo
                     51: >>>> page.
                     52: >>>>
1.21      wiki       53: >>>> With this approach, once the relevant
                     54: >>>> [[!iki bugs/anonok_vs._httpauth desc="ikiwiki bug"]] has been fixed,
1.18      wiki       55: >>>> the `opendiscussion` plugin should suffice to enable users to edit
                     56: >>>> content in a direct way, while also making clear to readers which
                     57: >>>> content comes from developers and which does not.
                     58: >>>> 
                     59: >>>> Things to think about when the time comes:
                     60: >>>>
                     61: >>>> * automating the `inline`, disclaimer, and user-edit link (in
                     62: >>>> [[!iki wikitemplates]]?)
                     63: >>>> * whether `anonok` is okay or we should require e.g. an OpenID
                     64: >>>> * treating non-developer edits properly in `log_accum` messages
                     65: >>>>
                     66: >>>> --[[schmonz]]
1.9       schmonz    68: _For non-developers using [[anonymous CVS|wiki/todo/push_wikisrc_to_anoncvs]]_:
                     69: submit a diff to `netbsd-docs@`.
                     71: _For non-developers using a web browser_: the ikiwiki discussion
                     72: subpage and/or [[!iki plugins/comments desc="comments plugin"]] may
                     73: point toward the solution.
1.3       wiki       74: 
                     75: One of the reasons we [[chose ikiwiki|wiki/todo/choose_wiki_software]]
1.9       schmonz    76: is the ability to edit via CVS directly, as well as via the web.
                     77: As long as every wiki editor is a developer, controlling access
                     78: consistently is simple. In order to open up wiki editing to
                     79: non-developers, we have to think carefully about both the CVS case
                     80: and the web case.
1.3       wiki       81: 
                     82: In the short term, to start getting non-developers involved, I intend
                     83: to [[push wikisrc to anoncvs]] and
                     84: [[hook up wiki commits to www-changes@]].
                     86: In the long term, ikiwiki has a few ready-made web authentication
                     87: options (a locally managed user database, OpenID, and HTTP auth), and
                     88: if they don't suffice for some reason, it's easy enough to write an
                     89: auth plugin. The hard part is deciding the workflow: where is a
                     90: sensible place for non-developers to make their edits, and what is a
                     91: sensible way for developers to review and "bless" the changes? Two
                     92: ikiwiki-native possibilities are listed above.
                     94: Ideas welcome! Edit this page and add your comments. --[[schmonz]]
1.4       wiki       95: 
1.5       wiki       96: One idea (which needs to be considered by board@):
1.4       wiki       97: 
                     98: 7. Enable Discussion subpages.
                     99: 7. Mark very clearly on the Discussion page template that content may
                    100: have been written by anyone at all and has not been vetted by any
                    101: member of TNF.
1.6       wiki      102: 7. Enable the `anonok` plugin and set the `anonok_pagespec` to allow
                    103: anonymous editing of Discussion subpages (and of no other pages).
1.4       wiki      104: 
1.12      wiki      105: > This doesn't actually work, though. Trying to create or edit a
1.14      schmonz   106: > Discussion subpage yields the HTTP auth dialog. And this is
                    107: > equivalent to the `opendiscussion` plugin. Joey says:
1.13      schmonz   108: > "it's a bug, not sure how to fix it right now". --[[schmonz]]
1.12      wiki      109: 
1.4       wiki      110: The resulting workflow:
                    112: 7. Non-developer finds a page to which to suggest changes.
1.9       schmonz   113: 7. Non-developer edits its Discussion subpage and writes the suggested
                    114: changes.
                    115: 7. Developer who follows [[RecentChanges]] (or the commit mails)
                    116: notices the changes.
                    117: 7. If the changes aren't acceptable, developer edits the Discussion
                    118: subpage and explains why not.
                    119: 7. If the changes are acceptable, developer applies them to the
                    120: page and removes them from the Discussion subpage.
                    122: > This can be work flow for a TNF contributed pages but as I said
                    123: > above this is not acceptable for as normal wiki workflow. We had
                    124: > almost similar discussion about comments on a blog software for
                    125: > NetBSD. There were developers who thought that there will be too
                    126: > many comments and we do not have man power to read/approve them
                    127: > all. After setting blog we have found that we have barely 1-2
                    128: > comments in every third article. I don;t thing that there will be
                    129: > too many real editors on our wiki from non-developers and therefore
                    130: > we need to make it easy not hard to do. --[[haad]]
1.12      wiki      131: 
1.19      wiki      132: >>And yet, we already had spam on the blog. I'm not much pro distributing spam, and would strongly suggest some kind of auth that at least brakes spam down a bit. That also speaks against using "any verifying OpenID" (ie users may opt to use OpenID but we still need to put their ID into some sort of list of good IDs). --[[spz]]
1.20      wiki      133: 
                    134: >>> This sounds reasonable. Getting oneself added to a whitelist isn't too much to ask a prospective contributor. The whitelist can be implemented using [[!iki plugins/lockedit]]. --[[schmonz]]
1.23      wiki      135: 
1.24    ! wiki      136: >>>> spz: How much spam we had there ? Because during our initial talks about blog there were huge expectations about number of spammers and comemnters on our blog for now I don't think that we have more then 30 uniq commenters/spammers that is so low number that we should block user non auth editing because of it. -- [[haad]]

CVSweb for NetBSD wikisrc <> software: FreeBSD-CVSweb