Talk:User Policy: Difference between revisions
WolverineFan (talk | contribs) (I agree with the new policy) |
WolverineFan (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 13: | Line 13: | ||
After seeing the scope of the changes made by the last batch of spammers (like 40 pages) I agree that limiting changes to a whitelist is a good idea. Yes, it's not ideal, but Scott has been making 90% of the changes to the site lately and I'd rather see his time devoted to content than to combating spammers. | After seeing the scope of the changes made by the last batch of spammers (like 40 pages) I agree that limiting changes to a whitelist is a good idea. Yes, it's not ideal, but Scott has been making 90% of the changes to the site lately and I'd rather see his time devoted to content than to combating spammers. | ||
Besides, even with the "open" policy there were very very few changes made by people outside the core group. Maybe if we get an extreme flood of new players this policy will be revisited. Until then it's not that bad. | Besides, even with the "open" policy there were very very few changes made by people outside the core group. Maybe if we get an extreme flood of new players this policy will be revisited. Until then it's not that bad. --[[User:WolverineFan|WolverineFan]] 13:57, 11 Oct 2005 (GMT) | ||
Revision as of 13:57, 11 October 2005
- We have been seeing a high volume of spammer and defacer activity lately. So we are adopting a new policy, as follows:
- 1) You must be logged in to edit pages. No anonymous edits. sorry.
- 2) You must ask an administrator to create a login account for you. Well what's the point of requiring you to log in if anyone at all can create a user account? So now you have to ask someone to make on for you.
I think this is a bit of a short-sighted policy. Surely part of the point of having a wiki is enabling the casual visitor to make quick changes? If you have to ask someone to create an account for you, and then wait for that all to be set up, then that's likely to put off a fair amount of people.
I know that spammers can be annoying, but can we at least try to combat them by reverting their edits, and blocking their accounts and IP addresses before locking down the whole wiki to a whitelisted set of users? I'm sure that we can have enough people regularly monitoring the site to combat the problem... --Frankie Roberto 13:24, 11 Oct 2005 (GMT)
I agree with the new policy
After seeing the scope of the changes made by the last batch of spammers (like 40 pages) I agree that limiting changes to a whitelist is a good idea. Yes, it's not ideal, but Scott has been making 90% of the changes to the site lately and I'd rather see his time devoted to content than to combating spammers.
Besides, even with the "open" policy there were very very few changes made by people outside the core group. Maybe if we get an extreme flood of new players this policy will be revisited. Until then it's not that bad. --WolverineFan 13:57, 11 Oct 2005 (GMT)
