Beefy Boxes and Bandwidth Generously Provided by pair Networks
Perl Monk, Perl Meditation
 
PerlMonks  

Disallow Anonymous Monks from posting to tutorials

by grep (Monsignor)
on Nov 10, 2006 at 04:03 UTC ( #583287=monkdiscuss: print w/replies, xml ) Need Help??

Not only for the recent spam activity, but it doesn't seem that unmoderated (in the PM sense) content like Tutorials should be posted anonymously.

UPDATE:
Reasons Clarified

  • AM's (or other monks) are not allowed to post top-level questions without approval, why should they be able to post something as important as a Tutorial without approval? Tutorial posting without any kind of approval seems to be awful big privilege to leave wide open to someone who won't sign there 'name' to it.
  • There is the obvious ability for abuse by unscrupulous outside posters
My suggestion is not to prevent the ability to anonymously post a tutorial (though I don't see a whole lot of benefit in that either), but to at the very least make anonymous tutorial posting subject to approval before appearing to the public.

Title Update: Clarity

grep
Just me, the boy, two monks, and no questions asked
  • Comment on Disallow Anonymous Monks from posting to tutorials

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re: Disallow AM's to post to tutorials
by ambrus (Abbot) on Nov 10, 2006 at 11:38 UTC

    I don't think the spam situation is that serious. I've only ever seen two unreaped spam nodes on perlmonks, because the editors delete them quite fast.

    Spam in most sections (SOPW, Med, PMDiscuss, Obfu, Poetry, CUFP, Snippets, Code, and News) are hidden by the approval system. Posting Categorized Questions is allowed only for monks of a certain level, Polls only for a certain group, and sections such as SiteDoc don't have an automatically generated index. I don't know how Book Reviews, Module Reviews, and Tutorials are moderated, but if the posts immediately show up in the section, then that's why there can be spam.

      A few points: janitors (editors) don't delete posts. Someone considers them for reaping, monks above a certain level vote on the consideration, the node accumulates the necessary negative reputation, and only then does it get reaped, leaving behind an ugly scar where the node once appeared. This may happen quite fast, or it may not. But it takes the intervention of at least four people every time it happens. Often spam-posts occur in rapid succession, making a sort of burst of activity required to keep up.


      Dave

Re: Disallow Anonymous Monks from posting to tutorials
by Argel (Prior) on Nov 10, 2006 at 19:37 UTC
    Are you trying to say that Tutorials should go through something similar to the SoPW process (someone has to approve it for that section and they or someone else can approve it for the frontpage)? That seems reasonable to me.
Re: Disallow Anonymous Monks from posting to tutorials
by Marza (Vicar) on Nov 10, 2006 at 21:27 UTC
    A level power sounds like a good idea and I like the idea of disabling the anon monk from posting to tutorials.

    In fact why not disable all comments? Is the tutorial section supposed to be a discussion area or simply a place to find information? If a user has questions, then why can't he post them on the questions board?

    This of course would probably require updating of the tutorials and I don't know if people would like doing that especially if the author disappears.

    Another reason to disable the anon monk is simply a "gift" to the authors. If the author is willing to publish work that means he is ready for good or bad comments. If you are going to take potshots, then you shouldn't hide behind the anonmonk.

    Tye said Meditations should be the area for the drafts and comments. That sounds reasonable.

    I would ask why not make use of the voting booth to handle if something should be added to the tutorials?

    I could see that causing discussions over the tutorial.

      In fact why not disable all comments? Is the tutorial section supposed to be a discussion area or simply a place to find information? If a user has questions, then why can't he post them on the questions board?

      Well, he can. But things change over time, both in the language proper, and in the people wandering around in the monastery. Even if a tutorial has been discussed in Meditations before making its way into Tutorials, single points may become obsolete after some time and/or new, better WTDI may emerge, and OTOH new people may notice something that wasn't in the first place. So, all in all, as with so many other things, there are obvious and less obvious advantages in both allowing comments and in disallowing them. But if you ask me, I'd make more or less everything commentable, including home nodes, as was once the case. (Albeit by means of a trick!)

      This of course would probably require updating of the tutorials and I don't know if people would like doing that especially if the author disappears.

      Actually, I've found myself repeatedly thinking that perhaps Tutorials would benefit by being more easily editable, but in the wiki sense, that is with means to also easily undo changes. However this doesn't fit well in the Everything2 scheme of things, where everything has an owner. Ideally, the two approaches are not mutually exclusive or incompatible: if there were some sort of ACL on nodes, e.g. on the basis of *NIX like permissions, then one author may allow others to edit a node of his/her own, and allow answers or not. Then some kind of nodes should have these turned on by default, and others turned off. (Should one think of this as some sort of umask?) But some nodes should have these facilities actually disabled for it wouldn't make much sense to allow one to post a question and to e.g. let him choose that everybody can edit it, and nobdy can answer it. Now that I think of it, it's not that bad a scheme in my mind, but it has the slight defect of not being implemented, and as you can see it would require seemingly unexpected complexities, so it is not likely to be implemented any time soon, if ever. So, all in all don't consider this as directly or strictly addressed to you, but rather as a meditation of mine gone wild, while thinking aloud of it. Or better: in the "typing-on-the-keyboard" equivalent of thinking aloud, of course.

        I second the thought that Tutorials should be wiki-like.

        In response to the original quesion though, I think that approvals in the same way as SoPW would be fine. Limiting who can post a certain type of document, or enforcing a particular process seems a little against the "way of the monastery". Requiring an approval, however, is perfectly in keeping with existing practices (and a very good idea for stopping spam before it starts as you mention).

A reply falls below the community's threshold of quality. You may see it by logging in.

Log In?
Username:
Password:

What's my password?
Create A New User
Node Status?
node history
Node Type: monkdiscuss [id://583287]
Approved by Old_Gray_Bear
Front-paged by Old_Gray_Bear
help
Chatterbox?
and the web crawler heard nothing...

How do I use this? | Other CB clients
Other Users?
Others wandering the Monastery: (3)
As of 2021-05-18 19:26 GMT
Sections?
Information?
Find Nodes?
Leftovers?
    Voting Booth?
    Perl 7 will be out ...





    Results (183 votes). Check out past polls.

    Notices?