Category talk:Wiki Edit Mode

Good job mkaing it appear easy.

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)

I think it is wrong for us to tell people "you're not welcome at that wiki", when those people actually are welcome at that wiki. So I want to change "ByInvitation" to some other term.

(c) A few wiki have a sysop who has made a list of people he knows, and has already invited them to edit (by email or face-to-face), and since he doesn't know me, I'm not welcome at his wiki. (Typically, wiki used for college classes, where the only people invited are the people in that class).

The term "ByInvitation" sounds like I need that kind of invitation.

I think there is a very big difference between that kind of wiki and another kind of wiki:

(b) There are a lot of wiki who don't allow anyone to edit until their "application" has been approved by a real live human being (typically the sysop). However, the front page of the wiki explains in big letters exactly how any random human can get this approval, and the sysop practically always rubber-stamps "approved" on such application, even if the applicant is a total stranger. They would love for me to edit their wiki, even though they've never heard of me before -- the only reason the sysop is doing this "human approval" thing is in hopes of keeping out robotic spammers and/or slowing down human spammers. The most recent example I've seen: Synthesizers.com Wiki.

Can you think of a better term to describe wiki where the sysop *wants* strangers to edit, but you can't actually edit until after some human sets the "allowed to edit" bit on your username? Perhaps "HumanApproved" ? "ApprovedLoginToEdit" ? Is "valid email to edit" is close enough? --DavidCary 13:31, 16 October 2008 (EDT)

higher level edit policy

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.

(Unsigned, 142.177.72.113, 22:33, 4 March 2007)

PayToEdit?

Just noticed OneBuckWiki listed at WikiIndex, looks like there some websites calling themselves wikis where you have to pay before you can edit them. Should these pay-to-edit "wikis" be listed at WikiIndex? --EarthFurst 16:34, 17 December 2007 (EST)

On the one hand, these "wiki" miss the entire point of wiki: collaboration.

On the other hand, it would be nice if wikiindex were a complete list of wiki -- even ones closed to the public.

Then we could note on the pages of those wiki that they seemed oddly deficient, and point out other, superior wiki that discuss the same topics.

--DavidCary 04:25, 19 December 2007 (EST)

How about adding PayToEdit as a sixth category of Wiki Edit Mode? (I don't like the idea of those pay-to-edit wikis lurking around in the LoginToEdit category.) --EarthFurst 14:56, 19 January 2008 (EST)

I would suggest, these wikis could be moved from LoginToEdit to PayToEdit, maybe with some words on this odd idea "pay-to-edit". Regards --Wolf | talk 15:08, 20 January 2008 (EST)

I expect to find useful things here - not advertisers and spammers. By listing things like "OneBuckWiki" we only promote advertisment bullshit and help them making money! This doesn't help the users to find useful wikis. Instead we should for example have a useful structure (e.g. categorisation) that helps finding things here...--Speckmade 03:18, 12 February 2008 (EST)

Hi, I think that a PayToEdit category would be a useful tool to express what we think is valuable about wiki. I do agree with Speckmade that we should figure out how to barnraise some category work around here, (feeling guilty). I would like to get folks together for an hour or two to trim down the Wikis to Add - anyone interested? Best, MarkDilley

I agree that we should make categories that are "not surprising" to our readers.

If our readers are are surprised to find that wiki in that category, then certainly we should move it to a more "expected" category, even if we have to create an entirely new category.

In my opinion, this WikiIndex should list *every* publicly-available wiki, no matter how evil it may be.

However, you may be able to convince us that things like this "shouldn't be listed on the wiki index, because it's not really a wiki, even if the software they use is distantly related to some wiki engine".

p.s.: I disagree with the idea that *mentioning* something is the same as "promoting" something. Surely the fact that I mention the "avian flu virus", doesn't mean that I "promote" the spread of that virus?

--DavidCary 17:41, 10 March 2008 (EDT)

I like the idea that this site lists all wikis: good, bad, and ugly. My perception is that there is a consensus here that we are allowed to add negative comments to a wiki's entry in the index, so when there's a concern such as this, we can address it by adding commentary to the page. I think I'll go ahead and create this category. --MarvelZuvembie 15:28, 12 March 2010 (EST)

SaveAfterPreview

What about a "SaveAfterPreview" category for wikis such as MARJORIE-WIKI? --MarvelZuvembie 15:23, 12 March 2010 (EST)