Get our free book (in Spanish or English) on rainwater now - To Catch the Rain.

Appropedia talk:Page permissions

From Appropedia
Revision as of 03:18, 4 February 2008 by Chriswaterguy (Talk | Contributions) (Appropedia talk:Permissions moved to Appropedia talk:Page permissions: avoid confusion with copyright permissions)

(Difference) ← Older revision | Latest revision (Difference) | Newer revision → (Difference)
Jump to: navigation, search

A couple of ideas about this Permission policy.

First off, I think it's a great start.

Regarding "proprietary pages", would it make sense to place these in "Proprietary" namespace (or similar)? If we did, then I think we might be able to use CSS/skin to automatically declare the page as suggested, rather than to rely on the authors to create a template. In addition, I would think we could also automatically transclude a page with an algorithmically generated name. Sysops could use that page (and protect it) to post notices if other users were nominating the page for deletion or correction. We would also need a talk page (potentially the talk page for the article itself?) where independent readers could request nomination of a page for various notices.

So, for example, it could work like this.

  • Page name Proprietary:XYZ is a proprietary page edited only by permission. (Somehow we have a means of defining who can edit it...separate issue.)
  • Page name Proprietary:XYZ-notice is the automatically transcluded notice page, if it exists (I believe there are wikitext schemes for doing this such that it's invisible if the page does not exist)
  • Page name Proprietary talk:XYZ is the page where anyone can leave comments.

It was suggested that these be labeled commercial sites, but I can imagine academics wanting the same kind of "property rights". Potentially we could have even more namespaces, or perhaps the Proprietary space could address multiple uses (that sounds workable to me).

Another option would be that articles in subnamespace (like User:xyz/other) by limited to edit by that user. (I think I saw a wiki extension that provided that.) But this may not easily allow for group edits.

I think for either the Proprietary or the Private policies to be fully evaluated, we would need to have the specific wiki extension(s) identified for consideration.

Great stuff! --CurtB 23:38, 3 May 2007 (PDT)