semi-voluntary moratorium and helping to edit.

[Alonso Del Arte]

Max,
 Neil still opposes the idea of a Wiki engine for the OEIS, and for what's
it's worth, so do I. Wikipedia is very useful to me, but when it comes to
say, copying and pasting a 47-digit prime, I can be almost 100% sure it's
correct if I'm getting it from the OEIS. With Wikipedia, even if I look at
the edit history, I will still want to have Mathematica doublecheck it for
me.
 There are several kinds of vandals on Wikipedia. The most obvious vandal
will put in irrelevant obscenities in an article, and that sort of thing
gets reverted almost instantaneously. But there's also a subtler kind of
vandal who might add an extra 0 to 6210001000 in the article on
self-descriptive numbers. That kind of vandalism could stand for months.
 Your proposal to have "trusted" and "untrusted" users might be one way
around this problem. But the group of "trusted" users would have to be very
small, e.g., those with Sloane number 0 or 1.

Alonso
 On 10/1/05, Max <relf at unn.ac.ru> wrote:
>
> Alexandre Wajnberg wrote:
>
> > What about the possibility given to the submitters (with a special
> > access code, or with a "recognition process" based on their IP adresse,
> > or something like that) to correct directly themselves their submissions
> > (and *their* submissions only), doubled by the automatic sending of a
> > copy of the job done to Neil?
> > (Anyway, a "review" of our job (even the easiest ones) by other
> > mathematicians will be allways necessary, but it would lighten Neil's
> work).
>
> Sorry to say that again but WiKi-driven engine would help a lot.
>
> Basic idea is to have two databases: "release" (or "main") and
> "development".
>
> The main database will be editable by a set of trusted people
> (maintainers) and will be read only for the others. The main database will
> provide the same services as the current OEIS.
>
> In opposite, entries in the development database will be allowed to be
> modified by anybody. That will create a queue of modifications that trusted
> people will review and accept/reject to the main database.
>
> Everything should be transparent and easy to use. For example, entries in
> the main database will have [Edit] button but if it is hit by "untrusted"
> person he will be automatically forwarded to the corresponding "development"
> database entry.
>
> Initially databases will be synchronized and a goal of the trusted people
> will be to maintain this synchronization, i.e., every modified entry in
> the development database sooner or later will be either accepted into the
> main database, or rejected and its original from the main database will be
> copied back to the development one.
>
> Max
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://list.seqfan.eu/pipermail/seqfan/attachments/20051003/531991c1/attachment-0001.htm>