Annotation of wikisrc/wiki/todo/let_non-developers_contribute_content.mdwn, revision 1.27
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.
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.
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.
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.
59: >>>> Things to think about when the time comes:
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
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
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:
1.25 schmonz 132: >> And yet, we already had spam on the blog. I'm not much pro
133: >> distributing spam, and would strongly suggest some kind of auth
134: >> that at least brakes spam down a bit. That also speaks against using
135: >> "any verifying OpenID" (ie users may opt to use OpenID but we still
136: >> need to put their ID into some sort of list of good IDs). --[[spz]]
1.20 wiki 137:
1.25 schmonz 138: >>> This sounds reasonable. Getting oneself added to a whitelist
139: >>> isn't too much to ask a prospective contributor. The whitelist can
140: >>> be implemented using [[!iki plugins/lockedit]]. --[[schmonz]]
1.23 wiki 141:
1.25 schmonz 142: >>>> spz: How much spam we had there ? Because during our initial
143: >>>> talks about blog there were huge expectations about number of
144: >>>> spammers and comemnters on our blog for now I don't think that we
145: >>>> have more then 30 uniq commenters/spammers that is so low number
146: >>>> that we should block user non auth editing because of it. -- [[haad]]
1.26 schmonz 147:
148: >>>>> Not speaking for spz, but the current holdup is a more general
149: >>>>> interaction with [[!iki plugins/httpauth]] combined with any other
150: >>>>> type of auth (including [[!iki plugins/anonok]]). Once it's fixed,
151: >>>>> it's about the same amount of work for us to whitelist the OpenIDs
152: >>>>> of actual human contributors as it is for us to allow fully anonymous
153: >>>>> editing. So the question becomes, what's best for this wiki that admins
154: >>>>> feel is reasonably manageable and responsible? Even if the risk of
155: >>>>> opening ourselves for editing by the whole Internet is small -- and
156: >>>>> we can't know that -- I'm not comfortable putting TNF at that risk
157: >>>>> unless there's a very compelling argument for it. --[[schmonz]]
1.27 ! schmonz 158:
! 159: >>>>>> After a bunch of work by Joey, we're much closer:
! 160: >>>>>>
! 161: >>>>>> * With httpauth, you can (still) edit any page.
! 162: >>>>>> * With an OpenID we've whitelisted, you can edit discussion subpages.
! 163: >>>>>> * Otherwise, you can't edit via the web.
! 164: >>>>>>
! 165: >>>>>> What's left:
! 166: >>>>>>
! 167: >>>>>> * In `page.tmpl`, inline discussion into parent page.
! 168: >>>>>> * In `log_accum`, properly parse and display OpenID edits.
! 169: >>>>>>
! 170: >>>>>> --[[schmonz]]
CVSweb for NetBSD wikisrc <wikimaster@NetBSD.org> software: FreeBSD-CVSweb