[Noisebridge-discuss] NoisyCalendary

[jim]

   i don't see a necessary contradiction between 
the two points of view: anonymity has a valid 
place, but claims on resources ought to be made 
with respect to some point of contact, unlike 
posts of news and opinion. 



On Sun, 2010-01-24 at 02:52 +0000, Jacob Appelbaum wrote:
> Ever Falling wrote:
> > i'm not sure a calender (something that deals with planning and resources,
> > both of which would need names behind them to make sure people have a point
> > of contact for collaborating and organizing with them) can be done with
> > anonymous editing. i think we should try a set up that requires some sort of
> > identification and then see if anything pops up that makes a valid reason
> > for needing anonymity. slapping it in there by default seems unwise to me. i
> > think noisebridge seems to want its cake and eat it too when it comes to
> > "anonymity + anything else" but that's a whole different discussion
> > altogether.
> > 
> 
> I firmly disagree. Anonymity in this case is possibly location anonymity
> (where the editor is editing from) and/or a possibly lack of login
> credentials (sometimes you want to make a change but you're unable or
> unwilling to login). We currently allow both kinds of anonymity on the
> Wiki. It Works Just Fine (TM) and seems to be auto-correcting for most
> things that aren't going so well.
> 
> Why would a calendar on our wiki be any different?
> 
> Best,
> Jake
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Noisebridge-discuss mailing list
> Noisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.net
> https://www.noisebridge.net/mailman/listinfo/noisebridge-discuss