Re: Our Wiki just got hijacked

From: Edmund R. Kennedy <ekennedyx_at_yahoo_dot_com>
Date: Tue Jun 29 2004 - 14:48:56 CDT

For whatever it's worth, I'm for item 3 and I am willing to maintain that. Also, we should only have one Wiki. If we go with DruPaul, we should delete UseMod.
Thanks, Ed Kennedy

Alan Dechert <> wrote:
My experience has been that once vandals strike, they like to come back. They don't appreciate you undoing their "work." So, it's likely to happen again and we will eventually have to protect the page in all probability.
----- Original Message -----
From: Popkin, Laird (WMG Corp)
To: ''
Sent: Tuesday, June 29, 2004 12:28 PM
Subject: RE: [voting-project] Our Wiki just got hijacked

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

- LP

-----Original Message-----
[]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 Wiki.
>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 
10777 Bendigo Cove
San Diego, CA 92126-2510
Amendment 1 to the US Constitution
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for the redress of grievances."
= 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