Hey everyone... there are about 10 of us with permission to edit the site at the moment. As you might know, I was convinced for good reason to restrict posting rights for the general public due to the inevitable vandalism that will target this wiki. However, there is a tradeoff resulting in fewer contributors.
If there are no objections, I will do this sometime tomorrow: Allow the public to edit pages (but not delete), with everybody who registers and e-mails given the ability to edit&delete. Is there any way to archive the current wiki in case somebody registers their name and deletes everything? Or would it be best to just disallow page deletion for everyone?
It would be good to have more people working on the progect. I'm not sure how many more who will know what they're doing and want to help there are, however. Still, it's worth a try. But there is getting to be a fair amount of useful things here. Can a page once deleted be restored? If so are you the only one allowed to do so?
I don't think there is any way to restore deleted pages. This isnt really a problem... pages that were to be deleted by the public can just remain as "orphan pages" and deleted by one of us eventually (or not at all). I think more people can contribute to the site... a biologist could help with tree rings, a geologist with ice cores, a statistician with anything really, etc.
Deleted pages remain forever in the wiki, unless permanently deleted by an admin. If someone comes along and maliciously deletes a page, you can easily restore it by reverting it to the version of the page just prior to its deletion. The same goes for any other edit that removes information. -KarlMogel
I saw that for the edits but not for deletions (for example, the deletion of a page I created with a misspelling in it, "Hockey Stick Controversey"). I attempted to restore that page prior to my above post, but I can't figure out how to do it, nor could I with a test page just now. For pages that have been edited, I can click on the "Edited" icon and see previous versions.
I did just see that individual pages can allow/disallow editing, deletion, etc. This makes the idea of a question page (or pages) easily workable...
I am going to open the site to edits for the general public on the condition that this will be removed if significant vandalism occurs. I expect that this will happen eventually, but that there is benefit to opening it for now.
Hit the "Info" icon, even on deleted entries, and you'll see the entry's history. An admin can memory hole (erase back to a given revision) to take care of serious copyright violations and other "it needs to be entirely off the site", but even an admin cannot alter the entry's history beyond clipping out revisions. All file attachments are also retrievable by revision. The history of edits is transparent, which allows for rapid repair of any vandalism. Rather than trying to play an escalating game trying to block people who see jackassery as an engaging challenge (through brute force or subtle ploys), the system makes it difficult for any one person to do widespread damage and trivial to repair damage done. It is all fairly moot until there is an actual individual doing damage, of course. Right now the only people engaging in non-topic discussion are us. ;) —jw
2007-12-06 22:41:29 Although it might take you an hour or two, reading the Help pages will do a lot of good. There are all sorts of nifty tricks - I don't even know all of them myself. Also, if you have a problem with a really malicious editor that you've banned and comes back - you'll know them by their IP address, which is displayed in the Info tab, and also when you hover over the name in the Recent Changes page. —KarlMogel
""I have no idea why I’m doing this..." I find this a jarring and disconcerting way to introduce the wiki. We need a more positive quote to open with! Cheers — Pete Tillman, 12/9/07
2007-12-09 09:06:29 You may be right, Pete, but I think it will go nicely on the "History of Climate Audit" page which will be split out of the Beginners page whenever I or someone else get around to working on it. So if you find a better beginning quote, move the existing one either to the stub on the beginner's page or start the history page. For that matter it might be fun to create a page called "Quotations of Chairman Steve". —DaveDardinger
I demoted Hurricanes to "minor", but looked at that page & it's really not so. Still a distinctly secondary topic at CA, though. Maybe we should rename "Minor" as "Secondary"? 12/9/07, Pete Tillman
2007-12-09 23:10:40 I decided to spend a bit of time on the wikispot.org main site and learned a few trickss and looked at some of the other sites. I was interested in seeing that most of the newly established sites have had little or nothing done to them. I suspect our site is already moving fairly far up the list of wikispot wikis in terms of pages, links etc. Though some of them are quite large here. Apparently the whole wikispot site is only a bit over a year old in terms of being open for people coming to and adding wikis. So I find it encouraging that we seem to be on a good curve in terms of adding content. —DaveDardinger
2007-12-11 16:00:42 So Pete, when is George going to get us our "Climate Audit 101" team jackets? —DaveDardinger
Dave, I'll go for the ball-cap, instead... —Pete
2007-12-13 00:54:57 Tillman made an edit with a comment about making something NPOV. Somebody might want to mention somewhere on the wiki if this wiki is expected to be NPOV. Few wikis are NPOV other than Wikipedia, and thus most wiki editors with experience outside Wikipedia won't simply assume NPOV is a policy here unless it has been stated as such. The content policies of most wiki editorial communities vary wildly according to need. NPOV is probably not wanted here anyway, as a point of view presented by Steve McIntyre or a guest writer would make sense to accordingly present within the wiki. In addition, there are plenty of NPOV statements that have to do with climate, but aren't present on Climate Audit (and thus probably don't make sense to have here). Unless the editors here want to go beyond indexing CA and venture into primary research and/or indexing other sources than just CA, NPOV probably doesn't make sense on this wiki, and a more appropriate policy might be a variety of defined canon (a more common editorial policy for index wikis: content must be citable within a specific scope of canon works, in this case CA, and presented according to the form of the original work). The scope would have to be defined: would comments fall within that scope? Personal correspondence? Outside quotes and articles referencing CA? Either way, if there is an unstated assumption, it should likely be stated for clarity sake. —JabberWokky
2007-12-13 01:08:30 NPOV: this is worth talking about. The article I revised was Carbon Dioxide, and I was trying more for a SM-emulation than strict Wikipedia-style NPOV. Actually, we should lure Our Host over here and get his opinion on his desired tone of articles... Cheers — Pete Tillman, 12/12/07 PS: how do you date/time stamp these things? —Tillman
2007-12-13 01:09:38 Belay my PS. Doh. —Tillman
2009-06-21 17:11:57 Re: Global Warming Clearinghouse, under Useful Information
I wonder if this is really appropriate for here. It does make some effort to cover both sides, but their sympathies are clear. But I've never used the site, so perhaps someone will defend it?
Cheers — Pete Tillman —126.96.36.199