From P2PVenture.org's Wiki

Revision as of 20:25, 15 October 2007 (edit) FredericBaud (Talk | contribs) (→Spam - disallowing anonymous edit as a quick fix) ← Previous diff		Revision as of 18:12, 16 October 2007 (edit) (undo) 84.101.85.101 (Talk) Next diff →
Line 25:		Line 25:
	I had to disallow anonymous editing as a quick fix to the bot(s) that is apparently spamming this wiki. I'd revert to allowing anonymous editing with captchas when I had found time to investigate the setup of this type of solution for MediaWiki. For the time being, please login before modifying pages. -- [[User:FredericBaud|FredericBaud]] 16:25, 15 October 2007 (EDT)		I had to disallow anonymous editing as a quick fix to the bot(s) that is apparently spamming this wiki. I'd revert to allowing anonymous editing with captchas when I had found time to investigate the setup of this type of solution for MediaWiki. For the time being, please login before modifying pages. -- [[User:FredericBaud|FredericBaud]] 16:25, 15 October 2007 (EDT)
		+
		+	Testing captcha for anonymous edits -- [[User:84.101.85.101|84.101.85.101]] 14:12, 16 October 2007 (EDT) - [[User:FredericBaud|FredericBaud]]

---

Revision as of 18:12, 16 October 2007

Discussion about licensing

Shall we continue to operate with CC BY SA license? I think we can also "Dual-license" to make content compatible with GnuFreedoc (so that it's compatible with Wikipedia, etc), similar to what http://aboutus.org has done: http://www.aboutus.org/AboutUs:Copyrights

Personally, I think we should address this for all content on all public sites, soon. That way there is no potential issue with newcomers down the road. --SamRose 13:13, 16 September 2007 (EDT)

I'm not sure I see the pros and cons of the different choices. Could we create a summary table with Pros and Cons columns where we would list the different choices of licenses. -- FredericBaud 14:43, 16 September 2007 (EDT)

Open Licenses: Pros and Cons

License	CC	By Attribution	Share-Alike	Non-Commercial Use	GnuFreedoc License	GnuFreedoc dual with CC BY SA
Pros	Widely recognized/Researched	Allows re-use, modification, gives reciprocation of recognition	Allows re-use, modification, and ensures that future generations of content shall remain in the "knowledge commons"	Allows for possible monetization of content/IP later	A widely adopted license, adds both "BY" and "SA" clauses (same pros and cons others? please list here) Make compatible with Wikipedia, if I understand your point above? What does it mean, cross-imports? -- FredericBaud 02:46, 18 September 2007 (EDT)	Bridges compatibility
Cons	May turn off some participants? On which ground? -- FredericBaud 02:46, 18 September 2007 (EDT)	Exclusionary to those who do not want open re-use of content, with attribution clause	Exclusionary to those who do not want open re-use of content, with clause that derivatives must also share alike	restricts re-use to non-commercial purposes	Not compatible with other common open license schemes	otherwise, same "cons" as stand alone CC BY SA and GnuFeedoc

Site maintenance

Spam

Seems we've got a couple of modification by bots on certain pages today. We should install captchas for anonymous postings. Any input on the best captchas for MediaWiki are welcome. -- FredericBaud 10:55, 11 October 2007 (EDT)

I had to disallow anonymous editing as a quick fix to the bot(s) that is apparently spamming this wiki. I'd revert to allowing anonymous editing with captchas when I had found time to investigate the setup of this type of solution for MediaWiki. For the time being, please login before modifying pages. -- FredericBaud 16:25, 15 October 2007 (EDT)

Testing captcha for anonymous edits -- 84.101.85.101 14:12, 16 October 2007 (EDT) - FredericBaud