[Discuss] wiki suggestion?

[eric.chadbourne at gmail.com (Eric Chadbourne)]

Excellent suggestions all with much to think about.  I'll play with them 
this weekend.

Thanks!

Eric Chadbourne


On 08/01/2014 08:49 AM, Bill Bogstad wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 1, 2014 at 8:35 AM, Greg Rundlett (freephile)
> <greg at freephile.com> wrote:
>> On Fri, Aug 1, 2014 at 2:00 AM, David Kramer <david at thekramers.net> wrote:
>>
>>> On 07/31/2014 10:50 PM, John Abreau wrote:
>>> ...
>>> world where script kiddies destroy your site because they can.  I used
>>> MediaWIki for one project and it is not designed like that.  It's very
>>> hard to lock down, and script kiddies put porn links all over the site.
>>>
>>
>> I think some clarification and correction is needed here with respect to
>> the capabilities of MediaWiki.  MediaWiki software is very easy to lock
>> down.  See https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Manual:User_rights
>>
>> I have zero script kiddies vandalizing my public (anonymous read) wiki
>> (because anonymous write is not allowed; and you can't get an account
>> unless I give you one.)
>>
>> I create wikis inside corporate firewalls where authentication is handled
>> by Google Apps and content is not accessible unless you are logged in.
>>   Certain content is white-listed (like the main page, and a page on login
>> help) so that even if you have physical access to the wiki, you must
>> authenticate in order to view pages.  That's pretty "locked down".  Once
>> authenticated, anyone in the company can edit any page on the wiki.  That's
>> what wikis are designed to do.
>
> So if I understand what you are saying, MediaWiki gives either zero access
> or 100% access?   Sort of like having a login on a Unix/Linux system where
> every file/directory is Read/Write world.   You still need a login to
> do anything,
> but once you have one you can do practically anything.
>
> Bill Bogstad
> _______________________________________________
> Discuss mailing list
> Discuss at blu.org
> http://lists.blu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>