[ILUG] content required for YOUR WEBSITE

[fuzzix]

Michele Neylon :: Blacknight Solutions wrote:
> [snip]
> Unlike SpamAssassin and other OSS projects linux.ie does not have 
> hundreds of active participants. There may be 600+ email addresses 
> (or whatever the figure was) subscribed to the mailing list, but that
>  does not mean that there are either 600 people or that the people
> are in anyway active. A wiki might work for certain areas of the
> site, but they are open to abuse, spam etc., and may not really bring
>  anything of value to anyone expecially considering the 
> aforementioned.
> [snip]

I was going to make a case for including a wiki on the ILUG site citing
the LUGRadio wiki: <http://wiki.lugradio.org/> but just took a look over
there and it's been spammed - damn internet. (D'oh! Always open with a
positive! *slaps forehead*)

Aside from this disadvantage, the LR wiki is fairly active with a user
base about the size of ILUG's (looking at the numbers in the IRC channel
anyway. No, it's not very scientific at all). It seems to take just a
few enthusiastic contributers to keep the entire thing fairly
up-to-date. I recognise that the purpose of the two sites aren't exactly
the same (outside the general "promote Linux" idea) but the user base is
fairly comparable. LR would be a cross section of LUGs, I suppose.

I don't think anybody is proposing a wiki as some sort of magic bullet -
work is still required - but the wiki format does seem to make this work
a lot more palatable - the idea of editing plain text is far more
appealing to me than editing HTML. There are ways around spam and other
abuse - for example, AbuseMod, an experimental fork of UseMod:
<http://www.hantslug.org.uk/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?AbuseMod>. There's also the
option of limiting editing to registered users but that does remove a
lot of the "anarchy" from the system. Then again, positive anarchy is
virtually impossible in a society that practises diminished personal
responsibility... :)