Ping Susan about notes and wiki

[Roger Johansson]

I have more than once searched pricelesswarehome
for a program, found it in a table, tried to
click notes in the rightmost column, and

was denied access, because I was not registered
or something like that.

Is it really supposed to be a members only
access to these "Notes"?

Is access to all wiki functions restricted
to registered members only?

 

[Susan Bugher]

I have more than once searched pricelesswarehome
for a program, found it in a table, tried to
click notes in the rightmost column, and

was denied access, because I was not registered
or something like that.

You're probably opening pages in edit mode (IOW - opening pages that
don't exist yet).

Is it really supposed to be a members only
access to these "Notes"?

Is access to all wiki functions restricted
to registered members only?

No - only editing. For more info see:

http://acfwiki.pbwiki.com/LoginPage

Susan
--
Posted to alt.comp.freeware
Search alt.comp.freeware (or read it online):
http://www.google.com/advanced_group_search?q=+group:alt.comp.freeware
Pricelessware & ACF: http://www.pricelesswarehome.org
Pricelessware: http://www.pricelessware.org (not maintained)

 

[Roger Johansson]

You're probably opening pages in edit mode (IOW - opening pages that
don't exist yet).

I am only clicking on the notes link, and is denied access.

Other people may do the same and not realize that the reason
is that there is no such page, so they are getting into edit mode.

Wouldn't it be better to only show a notes link if
there actually is a notes page for that program?

Is it possible to remove all notes links which do not
lead to existing notes?

I reply to myself. No, because it is impossible to
know if new notes have been added so all program entries
must have a notes link no matter if there is a notes page or not.

Well, anyway, it gives a negative experience and
it is not obvious to the users why they are denied access.
Visitors may draw the conclusion that parts of the PWH site
is just for members.

 

[Clif Notes]

Hi Roger,

I'm hoping to tell you something that might help you as you browse
through the acf wiki.

Pages that have not been edited yet should be shown as "red" links.

If you stay away from the red links, you should be fine.

Clif
http://clifnotes.net & http://freewarewiki.pbwiki.com
Devoted to promoting Freeware and Free Information

 

[Clif Notes]

Hi all,

I'll be darned. I just read the login page. I wasn't aware that it was
an "open" wiki.

Very nice.

Clif
http://clifnotes.net & http://freewarewiki.pbwiki.com
Devoted to promoting Freeware and Free Information

 

[Roger Johansson]

I'm hoping to tell you something that might help you as you browse
through the acf wiki.
Pages that have not been edited yet should be shown as "red" links.

I am talking about the links in the pricelesswarehome site.

If you stay away from the red links, you should be fine.

To check this I went into the acf wiki, I used the search field to
search for "editor", I got to the same place, you have to be logged
in..

I tried searching for "program", thinking that it must be
practically impossible to not use the word program in that wiki.
I got to the same login page, you have to be logged in..

About the color of links:

I use my own style for web pages, to avoid having to look at
all web designers insane colors and fonts, so all links in my
browser are blue or purple, depending on if I have been there or not.

I tried now to change to the page layout, but I still see no other
colors of links, in PWH or acf wiki, tried both.

Anyway, I do not want to see any other colors of links than
what is customary, blue for links I have not visited,
purple for visited.

To use text colors to convey any kind of information is a very
bad web design choice in my view.

 

[Susan Bugher]

I am talking about the links in the pricelesswarehome site.

To check this I went into the acf wiki, I used the search field to
search for "editor", I got to the same place, you have to be logged
in..

I tried searching for "program", thinking that it must be
practically impossible to not use the word program in that wiki.
I got to the same login page, you have to be logged in..

You are correct. The problems you describe are new. They have changed
the way the wiki behaves.

rats and phooey. . .

however. . . you CAN go to the links that are shown on the front page:

http://acfwiki.pbwiki.com/

and the login page tells you how to log in - where to find the password
etc.

Susan

 

[Roger Johansson]

You are correct. The problems you describe are new. They have changed
the way the wiki behaves.

rats and phooey. . .

No reason to get excited, it was just a bug report.

We put it on the todo list somewhere in the back of our minds
and maybe somebody will find a way to fix it.

......

I am fascinated by the way wikipedia works, it is a very
efficient way to work together for a large number of people.

But it lacks the discussion possibilities we have in a newsgroup.

In a newsgroup we can discuss very well but we cannot create
anything together except for a bunch of old messages which are
archived at googlegroups and other places.

The perfect combination would probably be to use a wiki and a newsgroup
together. So the wikipedians can discuss in the newsgroup about
problems
we stumble upon in the wiki.

In this era we learn to think together, millions and hundreds of
millions of people are learning to create things together, and we
are still searching for the best technical tools and methods for
doing this.

Wikipedia is like a public library where there is an encyklopedia like
Encyclopedia Britannica in a real library.

You can go in there when you need to know more about something.

If you are not satisfied with what is written you can rewrite it,
or add valuable information, and then put the book back onto the
shelf.

The main problem is that the editors need better communications between
each other, and trying to discuss in a wiki is very tedious and clumsy,
when all the participants are rewriting the same talk page.

A newsgroup is the perfect tool for serious discussions, so we should
have a newsgroup to use for discussions.

Wow, here's a crazy idea:
We could add a page about freeware in wikipedia, and update it every
year with a list of the best freeware in the world.

That way we would get the tool for free, wikipedia is already there and
gains reputation every year.

Maybe add a section on pricelessware and it's history...
and update it to show the current list of priceless freeware programs.

Why not, there are articles about practically anything
anybody feels is worth writing about.

 

[Roger Johansson]

Wikipedia is like a public library where there is an encyklopedia like
Encyclopedia Britannica in a real library.

You can go in there when you need to know more about something.

If you are not satisfied with what is written you can rewrite it,
or add valuable information, and then put the book back onto the
shelf.

We could add a page about freeware in wikipedia, and update it every
year with a list of the best freeware in the world.

I just added a link to pwh in the freeware page in wikipedia,
and a link to Pricelessware in wikipedia, just so I could go
to a page that may not exist.

I fould that there is an entry for Pricelessware already.

It is rather short and does not say much about the history
of pricelessware as an experiment in newsgroup democracy,
a new way to take decisions between people who never meet in
person, who exist only as written text, but are able to
discuss issues and take decisions.

This section of wikipedia could be expanded, with links
to sociologi, psychology, democracy, activism, the history
of internet, direct democracy, .. etc