Dear all,
I'm the only active wikiadmin of pdpedia (at http://wiki.puredata.info/). It is a persistent target of spam and I put quite a bit of effort into cleaning it up. Unfortunately my life is now busier than it once was and I have begun to ask myself: is it worth keeping clean? Is pdpedia a useful resource? Do people here use it much, or at all?
The recent changes shows how much work is involved: http://wiki.puredata.info/en/Special:Recentchanges I would say that my spamfighting edits outnumber regular content edits by about 50 to 1.
Given that it doesn't seem to be used much, I am considering stepping down and leaving it to the spam fiends. But of course I can only see information about editors -- I don't know how many readers there are.
There are plenty of other pd documentation projects -- the FLOSS manual, the articles at http://puredata.info/docs, the online help -- will pdpedia be missed?
Philip
although I'm still in the learning process and still have quite a way
to go, I personally wouldn't miss it - as you say, there are plenty of
other resources and I use them a lot.
Jurgen
On Oct 17, 2009, at 7:54 PM, Philip Potter wrote:
There are plenty of other pd documentation projects -- the FLOSS manual, the articles at http://puredata.info/docs, the online help -- will pdpedia be missed?
Philip
philip,
i understand yr frustration with the pdpedia, but i am still of the belief that pd and its numerous (count thousands) of objects (and abstractions) do need a pure reference online, and i do believe the wiki format suits maintaining a said reference.
i know that there are some reservations to using captchas for editing wikis but you are quite right, this thing has hit the spam bot engines and they are not going to cease the bombardment.
also the mediawiki engine last i checked is getting really dated and could desperately use a serverside upgrade.
perhaps there are some other volunteers that could help iem maintain the site infrustructure? -i personally don't think that mediawiki is the perfect fit for this project but its obviously a decent and professional editing platform.
the other option is to create a parser for the internal documentation, that can build an online reference from svn sources, this has been a minor pet project of mine but i have nothing exciting to report, perhaps in the not too distant future.
there are days i'd kill for a book next to me to solve all these problems, but more on that later (anyone working to similar goals?)
in the meantime can we maybe put the wiki on editing freeze until the spam issue is resolved?
thanks for your efforts,
dmotd
Philip Potter wrote:
Dear all,
I'm the only active wikiadmin of pdpedia (at http://wiki.puredata.info/). It is a persistent target of spam and I put quite a bit of effort into cleaning it up. Unfortunately my life is now busier than it once was and I have begun to ask myself: is it worth keeping clean? Is pdpedia a useful resource? Do people here use it much, or at all?
The recent changes shows how much work is involved: http://wiki.puredata.info/en/Special:Recentchanges I would say that my spamfighting edits outnumber regular content edits by about 50 to 1.
Given that it doesn't seem to be used much, I am considering stepping down and leaving it to the spam fiends. But of course I can only see information about editors -- I don't know how many readers there are.
There are plenty of other pd documentation projects -- the FLOSS manual, the articles at http://puredata.info/docs, the online help -- will pdpedia be missed?
Philip
Pd-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
On Sat, 17 Oct 2009, dmotd wrote:
i understand yr frustration with the pdpedia, but i am still of the belief that pd and its numerous (count thousands) of objects (and abstractions) do need a pure reference online, and i do believe the wiki format suits maintaining a said reference.
If only a PdPedia meeting could occur so that all participants can finally agree that PdPedia is not gonna go anywhere and is taking the energy and attention away from improving the currently most-up-to-date documentation sources...
However, googlable online docs would still be a good idea, as long as it is all done automatically, so that it doesn't duplicate any efforts, doesn't splinter other documentation projects, and doesn't cause headaches on how to merge the different documentation sources together. Edition features can be replaced by appropriate mailing-lists and enough svn accesses for everybody.
*-help.pd files need your help.
_ _ __ ___ _____ ________ _____________ _____________________ ... | Mathieu Bouchard, Montréal, Québec. téléphone: +1.514.383.3801
On Sat, Oct 17, 2009 at 12:54:16PM +0100, Philip Potter wrote:
Given that it doesn't seem to be used much, I am considering stepping down and leaving it to the spam fiends.
I had a choice once for a wiki I ran.
A) Leave it to the spam fiends. B) Install captchas.
I chose B. The rationale: a wiki with no captchas is better than a wiki with captchas, but a wiki with captchas is better than no wiki at all.
Marvin Humphrey
On Sat, 17 Oct 2009, Marvin Humphrey wrote:
I had a choice once for a wiki I ran. A) Leave it to the spam fiends. B) Install captchas. I chose B. The rationale: a wiki with no captchas is better than a wiki with captchas, but a wiki with captchas is better than no wiki at all.
wait. why wouldn't it be better to just have no wiki at all, even in a situation where there wouldn't be any spam and the captcha wouldn't be annoying?
I mean, what is the problem that is solved by the existence of a wiki, and which are the problems that are introduced by the existence of a wiki (not even thinking about spam and captchas), and how do those problems balance ?
_ _ __ ___ _____ ________ _____________ _____________________ ... | Mathieu Bouchard, Montréal, Québec. téléphone: +1.514.383.3801
On Sat, Oct 17, 2009 at 03:59:03PM -0400, Mathieu Bouchard wrote:
why wouldn't it be better to just have no wiki at all,
Maybe it would be better to kill it off, I dunno.
If you're gonna do that, though, either remove it completely or preserve it as a read-only resource. Don't leave the rotting carcass lying around for spammer maggots to feast on.
even in a situation where there wouldn't be any spam and the captcha wouldn't be annoying?
I don't think spammers ought to be driving the decision when there are countermeasures available. If the wiki is underused or outdated or whatever, do something to address that, such as retiring it. But if it's being used and the problem is the spam-to-edit ratio, captchas, whatever their drawbacks, can treat the spammer pestilence and let the wiki live on to die a natural death at the end of its natural lifespan.
Marvin Humphrey
Dear all,
thanks for your feedback. Based on the response, it doesn't seem worth it clearing the spam up by hand, but there have been some interesting suggestions for how to maintain pdpedia as a going concern. AFAIK I am unable to install captchas or make the wiki readonly (or editable by logged-in users only); I think the wiki owner would need to do any of these, if they desired.
Does anyone know who is ultimately responsible for the wiki? I guess it's Marius, but I'm not sure.
My preferred option would be to make the whole wiki semiprotected -- ie only editable by logged-in users. Captchas would also be a reasonable option.
Philip
2009/10/17 Marvin Humphrey marvin@rectangular.com:
On Sat, Oct 17, 2009 at 03:59:03PM -0400, Mathieu Bouchard wrote:
why wouldn't it be better to just have no wiki at all,
Maybe it would be better to kill it off, I dunno.
If you're gonna do that, though, either remove it completely or preserve it as a read-only resource. Don't leave the rotting carcass lying around for spammer maggots to feast on.
even in a situation where there wouldn't be any spam and the captcha wouldn't be annoying?
I don't think spammers ought to be driving the decision when there are countermeasures available. If the wiki is underused or outdated or whatever, do something to address that, such as retiring it. But if it's being used and the problem is the spam-to-edit ratio, captchas, whatever their drawbacks, can treat the spammer pestilence and let the wiki live on to die a natural death at the end of its natural lifespan.
Marvin Humphrey
Philip Potter wrote:
Dear all,
thanks for your feedback. Based on the response, it doesn't seem worth it clearing the spam up by hand, but there have been some interesting suggestions for how to maintain pdpedia as a going concern. AFAIK I am unable to install captchas or make the wiki readonly (or editable by logged-in users only); I think the wiki owner would need to do any of these, if they desired.
Does anyone know who is ultimately responsible for the wiki? I guess it's Marius, but I'm not sure.
no, sorry, it's not me, it's still hans. I don't even know on which server it is hosted at the moment. I don't mind taking responsibility but I am very much in favor of a read only version with restricted write access, like Mr Monk. marius.
My preferred option would be to make the whole wiki semiprotected -- ie only editable by logged-in users. Captchas would also be a reasonable option.
Philip
2009/10/17 Marvin Humphrey marvin@rectangular.com:
On Sat, Oct 17, 2009 at 03:59:03PM -0400, Mathieu Bouchard wrote:
why wouldn't it be better to just have no wiki at all,
Maybe it would be better to kill it off, I dunno.
If you're gonna do that, though, either remove it completely or preserve it as a read-only resource. Don't leave the rotting carcass lying around for spammer maggots to feast on.
even in a situation where there wouldn't be any spam and the captcha wouldn't be annoying?
I don't think spammers ought to be driving the decision when there are countermeasures available. If the wiki is underused or outdated or whatever, do something to address that, such as retiring it. But if it's being used and the problem is the spam-to-edit ratio, captchas, whatever their drawbacks, can treat the spammer pestilence and let the wiki live on to die a natural death at the end of its natural lifespan.
Marvin Humphrey
Pd-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
I do have ssh access to the wiki server and would be happy to make any
changes that people agree upon. I am currently running another
mediawiki for Firmata (http://firmata.org). When the spambots started
slamming it, I switched it so only logged in users could edit it, but
then created a public account and posted that username and password on
the wiki itself, see the bottom of this: http://firmata.org/wiki/Main_Page
Now there is no more spam.
Ideally that public account would be posted on the login page so its
easy to find. This system was used in the http://barcamp.org wiki for
many years and worked there.
.hc
no, sorry, it's not me, it's still hans. I don't even know on which
server it is hosted at the moment. I don't mind taking
responsibility but I am very much in favor of a read only version
with restricted write access, like Mr Monk. marius.
On Oct 18, 2009, at 2:13 PM, marius schebella wrote:
Philip Potter wrote:
Dear all, thanks for your feedback. Based on the response, it doesn't seem
worth it clearing the spam up by hand, but there have been some interesting suggestions for how to maintain pdpedia as a going concern. AFAIK I
am unable to install captchas or make the wiki readonly (or editable by logged-in users only); I think the wiki owner would need to do any of these, if they desired. Does anyone know who is ultimately responsible for the wiki? I guess it's Marius, but I'm not sure.My preferred option would be to make the whole wiki semiprotected -- ie only editable by logged-in users. Captchas would also be a reasonable option. Philip 2009/10/17 Marvin Humphrey marvin@rectangular.com:
On Sat, Oct 17, 2009 at 03:59:03PM -0400, Mathieu Bouchard wrote:
why wouldn't it be better to just have no wiki at all,
Maybe it would be better to kill it off, I dunno.
If you're gonna do that, though, either remove it completely or
preserve it as a read-only resource. Don't leave the rotting carcass lying
around for spammer maggots to feast on.even in a situation where there wouldn't be any spam and the
captcha wouldn't be annoying?I don't think spammers ought to be driving the decision when there
are countermeasures available. If the wiki is underused or outdated
or whatever, do something to address that, such as retiring it. But if it's
being used and the problem is the spam-to-edit ratio, captchas, whatever their
drawbacks, can treat the spammer pestilence and let the wiki live on to die a
natural death at the end of its natural lifespan.Marvin Humphrey
Pd-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
Pd-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
"Making boring techno music is really easy with modern tools," he
says, "but with live coding, boring techno is much harder." - Chris
McCormick
2009/10/19 Hans-Christoph Steiner hans@at.or.at:
I do have ssh access to the wiki server and would be happy to make any changes that people agree upon. I am currently running another mediawiki for Firmata (http://firmata.org). When the spambots started slamming it, I switched it so only logged in users could edit it, but then created a public account and posted that username and password on the wiki itself, see the bottom of this: http://firmata.org/wiki/Main_Page Now there is no more spam.
Ideally that public account would be posted on the login page so its easy to find. This system was used in the http://barcamp.org wiki for many years and worked there.
Thanks, Hans. Gets my vote.
Phil
-
dmotd -
Hans-Christoph Steiner -
jurgen -
marius schebella -
Marvin Humphrey -
Mathieu Bouchard -
Philip Potter