RE: Our Wiki just got hijacked

From: Popkin, Laird (WMG Corp) <"Popkin,>
Date: Tue Jun 29 2004 - 14:28:22 CDT

Do we have a concensus on this? I'm happy setting up whatever we want...

- LP

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-voting-project_at_afterburner_dot_sonic_dot_net
[]On Behalf Of Arthur
Sent: Tuesday, June 29, 2004 2:59 PM
Cc: ''
Subject: RE: [voting-project] Our Wiki just got hijacked

At 2:07 PM -0400 6/29/04, Popkin, Laird (WMG Corp) wrote:
>As for the issue of the wiki being our documentation, and the risk
>of it being defaced, I can see three easy options:
>1) Leave it as is.
>2) Add HTTP authentication to the web server, so we'd have a
>(shared) username and password used to access the site. This would
>block reading as well as posting.

2 is definitely bad.

>3) We move to a more sophisticated Wiki system that provides for
>logging in, access control over authoring, etc. For example, there's
>a Wiki module for Drupal that works quite nicely; if you'd like I
>can set it up on our Drupal site for people to evaluate. It
>basically looks just like a Wiki with Drupal sidebars. :-)

3 is what I'd prefer.

Best regards,

>- LP
>-----Original Message-----
>Behalf Of Arthur
>Sent: Tuesday, June 29, 2004 1:29 PM
>Subject: Re: [voting-project] Our Wiki just got hijacked
>At 1:16 PM -0400 6/29/04, David Mertz wrote:
>>>>A Wiki is closer to a discussion list than it is to formal publication.
>>On Jun 29, 2004, at 12:56 PM, Arthur Keller wrote:
>>>Others may not make that distinction. I'd prefer if we had a login
>>>system. Simple passwords will do.
>>What others?! People who don't know what a Wiki is?
>The typical person looking at our materials.
> >If you're worried about it, add a note to the HomePage that says "A
>>Wiki is more like a discussion list than it is like a formal
>>publication"... that way anyone who goes there will know that fact.
>>>The danger is not merely vandalism, it is someone changing our text
>>>in a way that we don't notice and changes our meaning. That's the
>>>greater risk.
>>Just look at the change history. There's nothing subtle there: it
>>gives you explicit diffs between versions, with colors and
>>highlights pointing out what's changed. Looking at a colorized
>>diff, it's pretty darn hard to miss it if a change gives the wrong
>>meaning. It doesn't make a whit of difference whether that wrong
>>meaning is malicious or careless, or just represents a
>>misunderstanding by an OVCer... if it's wrong, make it better!
>I don't understand the social problem of having registered users and
>passwords. It avoids vandalism, and let's us know who wants to
> >I definitely DO NOT want to create an ANTI-WIKI that masquerades as a
>Who's talking about an Anti-Wiki? I'm talking about controlled
>authorship. We don't allow merely anyone to post to our mailing list
>(and we've stopped quite a few Nigerian spams that way), and there
>aren't calls to allow anyone.
>I think people should introduce themselves to a community before
>contributing. Having strangers edit our discussions, for good or
>evil intent, is not a requirement of a Wiki. Rather, I want a
>discussion amongst a community, to which others can join.
>For the record, how long did it take until the vandalism was
>discovered and restored?
>Best regards,

>Arthur M. Keller, Ph.D., 3881 Corina Way, Palo Alto, CA  94303-4507
>tel +1(650)424-0202, fax +1(650)424-0424
Arthur M. Keller, Ph.D., 3881 Corina Way, Palo Alto, CA  94303-4507
tel +1(650)424-0202, fax +1(650)424-0424
= The content of this message, with the exception of any external 
= quotations under fair use, are released to the Public Domain    
Received on Wed Jun 30 23:17:27 2004

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Wed Jun 30 2004 - 23:17:30 CDT