[Noisebridge-discuss] NoisyCalendary

Sun Jan 24 17:45:23 UTC 2010

   the only practical need that's surfaced so far is that 
of being able to communicate with those who claim 
resources--one of the classrooms recently had contending 
claims. having a single "official" place to make claims 
and requiring some kind of reasonable communication 
channel with the claimer would help to reduce frustration 
and, seems to me, improve people's success at noisebridge. 
   it occurs to me that there might be other contentions, 
such as big draws on electricity or who knows..., not to 
try to solve problems that haven't occurred.... 

On Sat, 2010-01-23 at 21:34 -0800, Vlad Spears wrote:
> I don't think we need identification even for reserving resources.
> 
> Noisebridge has always been both a friendly bastion of anonymity and  
> self-correcting.  If someone reserves a resource anonymously and then  
> doesn't show, there will be plenty of Noisebridgers pointing it out,  
> finding the culprit and making it stop.
> 
> If it's a resource lock-in attack from outside you're worried about, I  
> believe that's a problem to fix when it develops.  A few pranks and  
> bits of malice are to be expected and can be lived with, but I would  
> define real attacks as something regularly destroying accuracy of the  
> calendar data.  To my knowledge, this has not yet happened with the  
> front page.  Since we've had no real troubles with anonymous access in  
> the past, I don't see a need to pre-solve the problem.
> 
> Leif has a username reputation system bulleted under Bonus Points on  
> the NoiseCal notes page, though.  As a voluntary option, perhaps this  
> could address everyone's concerns.
> 
> Vlad
> 
> 
> On Jan 23, 2010, at 8:59 PM, jim wrote:
> 
> >
> >   makes sense.
> >   i wasn't worried about spam-like robots, mainly
> > some way to manage contention for resources, also
> > to minimize pranks and malice.
> >   non-logged in edits seem fine, but people so
> > doing and who want to claim a resource should
> > identify themselves somehow or another, it seems
> > to me.
> >
> >
> >
> > On Sat, 2010-01-23 at 18:35 -0800, Leif Ryge wrote:
> >> So-called "anonymous" edits on mediawiki are really a misnomer - it  
> >> is more accurate to describe them as non-logged-in edits, since  
> >> they are actually attributed to an IP address which is potentially  
> >> much less anonymous than logging in with a pseudonym.
> >>
> >> The reason to allow them is convenience and the increased  
> >> participationn that results from that. People are much more likely  
> >> to edit the wiki if there are no barriers to doing so, and the  
> >> small hassle of picking a name and password is a significant  
> >> barrier. On the other hand, requiring login to edit achieves  
> >> absolutely nothing, unless you also restrict account creation  
> >> (which would obviously be a much bigger barrier and reduce the  
> >> use(fulness) of the wiki). I'm an admin on a couple of wikis which  
> >> do require a login to edit, and let me tell you: spam robots  
> >> figured out how to create mediawiki accounts a *long* time ago.
> >>
> >> So, I think we should continue to allow non-logged-in edits on the  
> >> wiki, and by extension the calendar, so that forgetting one's  
> >> password (or not wanting to create yet another) is no excuse for  
> >> not putting something on it.
> >>
> >> ~leif
> >>
> >> p.s.: notes from Ian and me meeting today are at https://www.noisebridge.net/wiki/NoiseCal
> >>
> >> ----- Original message -----
> >>>
> >>>     oh, i don't get why anonymous edits:
> >>>     anonymity seems antithetical to accountabilty, and
> >>> it seems to me things that our community depends on
> >>> ought to have some accountability track: who's claiming
> >>> what resources and why. requiring a name also reduces
> >>> the vulnerability to malice and pranks.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On Sat, 2010-01-23 at 13:36 -0800, Ian Atha wrote:
> >>>> Hey folks,
> >>>>
> >>>> Leif and I are meeting up at 2169 today circa 3pm to brainstorm  
> >>>> about
> >>>> the implementation of the One True Noisebridge Calendar. If you  
> >>>> have
> >>>> anything you'd like us to consider now's the time to speak!
> >>>>
> >>>> For your reference, voilá Kelly's specs:
> >>>>
> >>>> - Publicly editable, anonymously editable
> >>>> - Publicly linkable
> >>>> - Has the usual variety of calendar layouts (day, week, month,  
> >>>> list)
> >>>> - The usual calendar capabilities (description field, repeating  
> >>>> events)
> >>>> - iCal feed, RSS feed
> >>>> - Some sort of feed which can auto-update the wiki homepage
> >>>> - Probably free
> >>>> - Hosted locally(ish)
> >>>>
> >>>> And bonus options:
> >>>> - Can use wiki logins or some other kind of identification in  
> >>>> addition
> >>>> to anonymous
> >>>> - Events have a field for which room/area of NB
> >>>> - Calendars show which room/area of NB
> >>>> - open source or some other moral superiority
> >>>> - easy publishing to email (for nb-announce, for instance)
> >>>> - misc bells and whistles
> >>>>
> >>>> I'd heart you so much more if we keep this thread relevant!
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> -ian.
> >>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>> Noisebridge-discuss mailing list
> >>>> Noisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.net
> >>>> https://www.noisebridge.net/mailman/listinfo/noisebridge-discuss
> >>>
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> Noisebridge-discuss mailing list
> >>> Noisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.net
> >>> https://www.noisebridge.net/mailman/listinfo/noisebridge-discuss
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Noisebridge-discuss mailing list
> >> Noisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.net
> >> https://www.noisebridge.net/mailman/listinfo/noisebridge-discuss
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Noisebridge-discuss mailing list
> > Noisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.net
> > https://www.noisebridge.net/mailman/listinfo/noisebridge-discuss
> 