Category talk:Wiki Edit Mode

"first edit"?

Why not call this first edit? It more correctly explains what the tags describe. That also makes it clear that you're not trying to describe a whole 'mode' or 'policy'.

Unknown

This is no longer an edit mode, but is directly in Browse - needs to be cleaned up. See Category:Unknown to help.

ByInvitation and ReadOnly

Do these really need to be seperate? If sysops can edit ReadOnly wikis, aren't those also ByInvitation, by definition? TedErnst | talk 11:34, 7 Mar 2006 (EST)

I think there is a very big difference between

• (a) a wiki where any random person can "register" with a user name and within minutes, without any human approval, immediately start to edit -- that's what LoginToEdit means, right ? -- vs.
• (b) a wiki where any random person can "register" with a user name, and after some human approves it (perhaps within a day or so), can start to edit, -- vs.
• (c) a wiki where only the Sysop and perhaps a few people the Sysop has selected ahead of time can edit, one that does not give any email address or other way for outsiders to register.

The word "invitation" in "ByInvitation" implies (c). Type (c) and ReadOnly wiki are effectively the same, to outsiders like me. What do I use to tag type (b) wiki? I would like a better name for type (b) wiki. RegisterToEdit, HumanApprovedApplicationToEdit, ... surely there's a better name? --DavidCary 22:55, 8 December 2006 (EST)

no, when for example the database is locked at a MediaWiki wiki, I don't think sysops can edit it. (I don't know, correct me if I'm wrong) so when it's ReadOnly, no one can edit it (I think), but ByInvitation it's editable by eveyone, who been invited. (gee I'm not good at explaining stuff.) – Smiddle / T·C·@ 04:53, 9 December 2006 (EST)

We discussed all of this a long time ago, and if we didn't document well our thinking at the time, I suppose we're left with David's questions. :-) Let me see if I can describe how I see things. At first, we had many different categories the we eventually collapsed down to ByInvitation. Definitely (a) above means LoginToEdit. I'm almost certain that type (c) would be ReadOnly for us, because there's no way to know who's allowed to edit when you come upon a wiki like this. All you can see is that there's no way to edit, no way to login and no way to register or apply for a login. So that's how we've been using ReadOnly. Smiddle's "lockdown" scenario isn't specifically addressed, but that would be ReadOnly as well. We're currently using ByInvitation to mean any wiki where you have to register by some publically available means, and a human has to approve you. If that needs some other name, feel free to propose one. That would be fine with me, if ByInvitation isn't cutting it. We discussed it for a long time, but I see no reason to change if there's a term that's more clear. TedErnst | talk 14:51, 9 December 2006 (EST)

---

This scheme is actually not very good. Among other things it doesn't deal with the higher level edit policy questions. Who really cares if all editors are required to sign up for a throwaway handle under an obvious troll name, or worse, a seemingly real name? This doesn't matter at all. It matters far more if a valid email required, but not much, if that valid email can be from a throwaway supplier of same like hotmail.

Probably this "mode" stuff needs to expand into category:wiki_edit_policy (kill the bad use of capital letters please, it isn't English). It's far more important to know if, like Consumerium, the wiki has troll-friendly policies (not just open edit, but also no outing, no witchhunt, no ad hominem revert, no out of process delete or only spam deleted, etc.). It says a lot if the administrators go around, as they do on Wikipedia, and try to kill every single link to "sysop vandalism", etc..

Wiki moderation capability varies very widely, and many wiki administrators are very very stupid. The vast majority of wikis are killed by arbitrary and capricious behaviour that convinces willing editors that their work won't be respected, and no one cares to consult them on important changes to policy. The flipside of wiki is that while you get free open content contributed, the contributors will disappear if you don't cut the right balance between redirecting out-of-scope concerns elsewhere and letting the contributors decide, or if you don't cut the right balance between pleasing the old trolls and helping new ones.