|
This announcement has been vetted and approved by the Shroomery administrators.
|
Anno
Experimenter



Registered: 06/17/99
Posts: 24,166
Loc: my room
Last seen: 20 days, 18 hours
|
Re: Shroomery Content Management System v2.0 [Re: fireworks_god]
#5931947 - 08/04/06 03:52 PM (17 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
We definitely want to go the no forced review route. If we should experience too much vandalism, we can always restrict the editing to long(er)-time members, or even allow editing only upon request.
|
Banez
Stranger


Registered: 09/23/05
Posts: 15,181
|
Re: Shroomery Content Management System v2.0 [Re: Anno]
#5931983 - 08/04/06 04:06 PM (17 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
its looks great.. and its def a great idea.. (for whatever my 2 sense is worth)... i agree with whoever stated that there should be a mimimum post count.. i would even take it a step further and make a minimum time reged also
|
fireworks_god
Sexy.Butt.McDanger


Registered: 03/12/02
Posts: 24,855
Loc: Pandurn
Last seen: 1 year, 12 days
|
Re: Shroomery Content Management System v2.0 [Re: Banez]
#5932135 - 08/04/06 05:00 PM (17 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
Vandalism is one thing, but I am afraid that some detrimental changes will not go immediately noticed, and that severe, negative effects could result, perhaps someone eating a poisonous mushroom after reading disinformation, or possible legal action.
We've already suffered at the hands of those who have hacked this website (regardless of the conspiracy theory that might be apt regarding that, ka-ching ). I don't see it is a forced review, simply that someone is going to be assuring that nothing will be fucked up before it is fucked up.
I mean, either way, whatever, I am simply making a suggestion. Why react to people fucking shit up when we could prevent it beforehand? 
 Peace.
--------------------
If I should die this very moment I wouldn't fear For I've never known completeness Like being here Wrapped in the warmth of you Loving every breath of you
|
Anno
Experimenter



Registered: 06/17/99
Posts: 24,166
Loc: my room
Last seen: 20 days, 18 hours
|
Re: Shroomery Content Management System v2.0 [Re: fireworks_god]
#5932956 - 08/04/06 09:57 PM (17 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
Because a wiki is a self regulating mechanism. The authors control each other, there should be no need for a review before the content is put on the website. In this forum there is no review before the content is put online either, or is it? And as far for the disclaimer, if it works for Wikipedia, and Erowid, why shouldn't the disclaimer work for the Shroomery also?
|
fireworks_god
Sexy.Butt.McDanger


Registered: 03/12/02
Posts: 24,855
Loc: Pandurn
Last seen: 1 year, 12 days
|
Re: Shroomery Content Management System v2.0 [Re: Anno]
#5934023 - 08/05/06 09:33 AM (17 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
Hey, like I said, I was simply making a suggestion. If idealism will grant some loser like the one spreading negativity above the opportunity to vandalize the website and its content, then that is idealism for you. I'd have to imagine that Wikipedia does not deal with the same sort of sensitive information that the Shroomery does, and also that such a disclaimer would not be effective if legal action did result. I can post a sign on my property that proclaims that I cannot be held responsible for accidents, but that does not mean that my disclaimer is legally valid.
I can't wait to see some asshole make an article on selling mushrooms that one has grown to school children. Sure, some other author could catch it and delete it, and we could restore the content back before that point, but why react to problems when you can prevent them?
Hey, idealism for idealism's sake is awesome. 
 Peace.
--------------------
If I should die this very moment I wouldn't fear For I've never known completeness Like being here Wrapped in the warmth of you Loving every breath of you
|
Banez
Stranger


Registered: 09/23/05
Posts: 15,181
|
Re: Shroomery Content Management System v2.0 [Re: fireworks_god]
#5936222 - 08/06/06 04:58 AM (17 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
personally i just dont like the idea of anyone being able to edit information that is posted.. or being able to post misinformation.. i mean personally thats why i NEVER use wiki.. you never know the quality of the postings.
i do think its a good idea.. if we could somehow regulate who is allowed to post information.
|
fireworks_god
Sexy.Butt.McDanger


Registered: 03/12/02
Posts: 24,855
Loc: Pandurn
Last seen: 1 year, 12 days
|
Re: Shroomery Content Management System v2.0 [Re: Banez]
#5936437 - 08/06/06 08:41 AM (17 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
Well, I don't think we would necessarily need to regulate who is permitted to submit information, just that we simply need a few people with a small amount of extra time to read through and quickly verify that someone isn't damaging the content that already exists, proposing obviously false information, or otherwise vandalizin the site or endangering it.
Just a quick overview, you know? Content-specific reviewers (for example, the amazing contributors to forums like mushroom id and everything that exist as a wealth of knowledge and love to contribute to the understanding of others) could give it a quick glance over after it has been approved, to determine if the stuff is really accurate.
Makes sense to me, but I'm not a wiki-idealist, so I'm sure I'm missing the spirit of the thing. Some moron posted an advertisement for selling marijuana buds, seeds, etc in The Pub. There was an active moderator who ensured the thread quickly vanished. With someone to simply glance over submitted content on the website, the stuff would never even become visible at all. The disclaimer might protect us legally from being liable for that kind of thing, but why even rely on a disclaimer that could be ripped to shreds in court by a biased judge or whatever if we simply have some people who would love to help the website out do a few minutes of reading.
Comparing the forum to the website isn't really valid, either, saying that we dont' have reviewers of the stuff submitted on the forum. Well, considering how many people are using the forum at any given second, it can't work like that, but, to be perfectly honest, I don't see a huge amount of people lining up to submit and edit a ton of content at any given moment of the day. 
 Peace.
--------------------
If I should die this very moment I wouldn't fear For I've never known completeness Like being here Wrapped in the warmth of you Loving every breath of you
|
HELLA_TIGHT
Madge the Smoking Vag


Registered: 08/19/03
Posts: 84,387
Loc: Afghanistan
|
Re: Shroomery Content Management System v2.0 [Re: fireworks_god]
#5937119 - 08/06/06 01:58 PM (17 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|

You might want to add little scroll bars.
--------------------
|
fireworks_god
Sexy.Butt.McDanger


Registered: 03/12/02
Posts: 24,855
Loc: Pandurn
Last seen: 1 year, 12 days
|
Re: Shroomery Content Management System v2.0 [Re: HELLA_TIGHT]
#5937917 - 08/06/06 06:29 PM (17 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
I'd like to see the little comments at the end of each article removed. 
 Peace.
--------------------
If I should die this very moment I wouldn't fear For I've never known completeness Like being here Wrapped in the warmth of you Loving every breath of you
|
kake
The answer to1984 is 1776.



Registered: 05/06/99
Posts: 2,782
Loc: The 66th harmonic
|
Re: Shroomery Content Management System v2.0 [Re: fireworks_god]
#5939620 - 08/07/06 01:44 AM (17 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
I'm going to go ahead and agree with fireworks_god.
Things like the pf_tek and stuff, why should they be wiki-fied? Who gets the say if someone makes a small change like 1/3 to 2/3 cup of water, when one person believes it works better and the other does not? Who will even notice?
Anno-no offense, but I didn't like the cheapness of your response. Fireworks_god is asking about the chances of someone getting hurt or dying because of a vandalism act; your response makes it sound like the only concern is the site's liability.
That's not even half the issue from my standpoint as a faithful Shroomerite, I'm here partly because I like to stand behind the Shroomery's mission - to help educate, to promote harm reduction/prevention, etc. , and while a wiki-system might seem modern and useful for general information, I'm not convinced it fits so nicely into the highly sensitive nature of the information that can be found here.
An analogy. You're about to go skydiving, and you're folding your own parachute. Do you go to wikipedia.org to follow instructions on how to do it properly (which might be accurate, and useful, and easy), or do you buy a book on it that you absolutely know you can trust?
I'm curious to know how flexible this system is going to be. I think the idea of moderators is a really good one, almost imperative from my point of view. But maybe Ythan or someone else can enlighten me as to why I shouldn't be so concerned?
-------------------- The answer to 1984 is 1776.
|
kake
The answer to1984 is 1776.



Registered: 05/06/99
Posts: 2,782
Loc: The 66th harmonic
|
Re: Shroomery Content Management System v2.0 [Re: kake]
#5939627 - 08/07/06 01:47 AM (17 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
Not to mention, I think the Shroomery can be heralded as a great resource for mushroom information, and a very trustworthy one at that. I'd hate to see its credibility diminish in any way shape or form. LONG LIVE SHROOMERY
-------------------- The answer to 1984 is 1776.
|
Anno
Experimenter



Registered: 06/17/99
Posts: 24,166
Loc: my room
Last seen: 20 days, 18 hours
|
Re: Shroomery Content Management System v2.0 [Re: kake]
#5943080 - 08/08/06 02:05 AM (17 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
kake said: Things like the pf_tek and stuff, why should they be wiki-fied?
They won't be. There is no point in making the "historical" teks editable.
|
Anno
Experimenter



Registered: 06/17/99
Posts: 24,166
Loc: my room
Last seen: 20 days, 18 hours
|
Re: Shroomery Content Management System v2.0 [Re: fireworks_god]
#5943124 - 08/08/06 02:32 AM (17 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
I think you are overestimating the negative energies of our members. We ALREADY have a wiki which has been operating for something like 2 years with hardly any vandalism. Therefore I don't see why this should suddenly change. And IF problems like this really should arise, we can deal with this when they arise and take the proper measures.
|
mycofile
Pooh-Bah


Registered: 01/18/99
Posts: 2,336
Loc: Uranus
|
Re: Shroomery Content Management System v2.0 [Re: Anno]
#5944305 - 08/08/06 02:18 PM (17 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
I don't think that such a disclaimer is going to remove The Shroomery from all responsibility, especially considering the sensitive nature of this information in relation to the law.
Well, it seems good enough for wikipedia for their shroom pages, which are pretty good to not be shroomery community created:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psilocybe_cubensis http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psilocybe http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psilocybe_azurescens http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychedelic_mushroom
They have more to boot. I see no reason that if they can produce shroom content like that, that we can't do better. We are the shroomery, right?
-------------------- "From a certain point of view" -Jedi Master Obi Wan Kenobi PM me with any cultivation questions. I just looked at my profile and realized I had a website at one point in time on geocities, it's not there anymore and I have no idea what I had on it. Anybody remember my website from several years aga? PM if so please.
|
kake
The answer to1984 is 1776.



Registered: 05/06/99
Posts: 2,782
Loc: The 66th harmonic
|
Re: Shroomery Content Management System v2.0 [Re: Anno]
#5947096 - 08/09/06 11:21 AM (17 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Anno said: I think you are overestimating the negative energies of our members. We ALREADY have a wiki which has been operating for something like 2 years with hardly any vandalism. Therefore I don't see why this should suddenly change. And IF problems like this really should arise, we can deal with this when they arise and take the proper measures.
I'd like to see the statistics on the number of visitors to the current wiki system vs. the rest of the site. I'm sure if the entire site went wiki it would be a different story.
I'm not overestimating the negative energy of the members, it only takes a few.
BTW: When I went to the beta site, it seemed to be the case that the historical teks were in fact edittable, thats why I questioned.
-------------------- The answer to 1984 is 1776.
|
Anno
Experimenter



Registered: 06/17/99
Posts: 24,166
Loc: my room
Last seen: 20 days, 18 hours
|
Re: Shroomery Content Management System v2.0 [Re: kake]
#5951872 - 08/10/06 08:06 PM (17 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
The permission system is still being worked on.
|
barto
Stranger

Registered: 11/25/05
Posts: 360
Last seen: 17 years, 3 months
|
Re: Shroomery Content Management System v2.0 [Re: Anno]
#5957588 - 08/12/06 08:59 PM (17 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
i think this is a terrible idea. when you set something up where it can be edited by a bunch of fools when its pertaining to drugs, its not only irresponsible but dangerous.
|
C-Dizzle
Stranger


Registered: 01/06/06
Posts: 682
|
Re: Shroomery Content Management System v2.0 [Re: barto]
#5988166 - 08/22/06 10:13 PM (17 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
sounds good
|
|