862
edits
OpenWetWare talk:Software/Subwikis: Difference between revisions
From OpenWetWare
Jump to navigationJump to search
no edit summary
Streptomyces (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
|||
| Line 23: | Line 23: | ||
*'''[[Sri Kosuri]] ([[User talk:Skosuri|talk]]) 11:55, 9 May 2007 (EDT)''':Hi Jim, and thanks for bringing attention back to the discussion. I actually like this idea a lot. It may be that people only want a few things that are private. I really don't know how much private information users want to post up... is it just a few things (like account numbers et cetera) or is it many things (pre-publication protocols et cetera)? But, it seems like allowing one private page allows us to keep reasonable limits on what people can keep private, at the same time giving users increased flexibility. What are other people's thoughts? | *'''[[Sri Kosuri]] ([[User talk:Skosuri|talk]]) 11:55, 9 May 2007 (EDT)''':Hi Jim, and thanks for bringing attention back to the discussion. I actually like this idea a lot. It may be that people only want a few things that are private. I really don't know how much private information users want to post up... is it just a few things (like account numbers et cetera) or is it many things (pre-publication protocols et cetera)? But, it seems like allowing one private page allows us to keep reasonable limits on what people can keep private, at the same time giving users increased flexibility. What are other people's thoughts? | ||
*'''[[User:Rshetty|Reshma]] 12:15, 9 May 2007 (EDT)''': I agree with Austin. The primary motivation for private pages is to encourage people to digitize content that can later be made public (since people are unlikely to go back and digitize content after the fact). How does a single private page encourage digitization of content for later release publicly? Isn't a google doc sufficient for single page privacy? My feeling is that the cost (implementing single page access controls, users being unable to follow links to private pages) justifies the benefits (user convenience). | *'''[[User:Rshetty|Reshma]] 12:15, 9 May 2007 (EDT)''': I agree with Austin. The primary motivation for private pages is to encourage people to digitize content that can later be made public (since people are unlikely to go back and digitize content after the fact). How does a single private page encourage digitization of content for later release publicly? Isn't a google doc sufficient for single page privacy? My feeling is that the cost (implementing single page access controls, users being unable to follow links to private pages) justifies the benefits (user convenience). | ||
*'''Jim @ [[User:Streptomyces|Streptomyces]] 09:15, 10 May 2007 (EDT)''': Well, just an idea really. I thought if researchers were trying to collaborate then a single private page would be enough room to present and discuss ideas/results. However, this idea could be extended to multiple pages, without creating a subwiki. The authentication could be administered as before, but a limited number of multiple pages available (user:private; user:private01; user:private02 etc...). In the preferences you could authorise access to 1,2 or multiple private pages by entering a user ID in the respective section. OWW users would easily be able to follow a link to view a private page, because it would be a requirement that they are logged in to gain access. Should a non-OWW user want to view a private page, e.g. after receiving an invatition from an OWW user; they would have to sign up for an account. Hopefully, the new user would see a greater benefit of OWW other than just the collaboration, and create their own wiki. Perhaps this feature would also encourage researchers to keep their wiki up-to-date; thus promoting open dissemination of information. No researcher with a sensible head is going to want to discuss/present unpublished data/ideas. The private pages should be reserved for such information. Once the collaboration has finished and/or the data published, it would be easy for the page to be moved to a public area. I hope this is clear enough to follow. I welcome further discussion if OWW sees this as beneficial progression that fits their ethos. | |||
