Wordpress allows plenty of accounts at various levels. On one site I maintain, there's the basic "follower" level which all the spambots subscribe to and which allows them to do nothing as far as I can tell, so I just delete them in bulk every week or so; and then there are 'contributor' and 'admin' and 'editor' levels each with different access rights. Anyone can comment and the spam filter's pretty solid. You would need (an) admin person(s) to decide which new followers should be deleted and which allowed to contribute posts though.
On the principle of it I think there should be one account per person unless there are compelling reasons why not (and the only compelling reason I can think of off the top of my head is if an interface didn't allow it).
Deborah
-----Original Message-----
From: Code for Libraries [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Karen Coyle
Sent: Thursday, 21 February 2013 6:07 a.m.
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] GitHub Myths (was thanks and poetry)
Sure. Although the question was more: how can we make it easy to have a bunch of accounts? Or should we have a c4l account that we share (and monitor for spam)? I think anything wysiwyg-y and familiar (wordpress certainly meets those criteria) would be fine. There does seem to be a lot of familiarity with Wordpress in the group.
kc
On 2/20/13 8:45 AM, Ethan Gruber wrote:
> Wordpress?
>
>
> On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 11:42 AM, Karen Coyle <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
>> Shaun, you cannot decide whether github is a barrier to entry FOR ME
>> (or anyone else), any more than you can decide whether or not my foot hurts.
>> I'm telling you github is NOT what I want to use. Period.
>>
>> I'm actually thinking that a blog format would be nice. It could be
>> pretty (poetry and beauty go together). Poems tend to be short, so
>> they'd make a nice blog post. They could appear in the Planet blog
>> roll. They could be coded by author and topic. There could be comments! Even poems as comments!
>> The only down-side is managing users. Anyone have ideas on that?
>>
>> kc
>>
>>
>>
>> On 2/20/13 8:20 AM, Shaun Ellis wrote:
>>
>>>> (As a general rule, for every programmer who prefers tool A, and
>>>> says that everybody should use it, there’s a programmer who
>>>> disparages tool A, and advocates tool B. So take what we say with a
>>>> grain of salt!)
>>> It doesn't matter what tools you use, as long as you and your team
>>> are able to participate easily, if you want to. But if you want to attract
>>> contributions from a given development community, then choices
>>> should be balanced between the preferences of that community and
>>> what best serve the project.
>>>
>>> From what I've been hearing, I think there is a lot of confusion
>>> about GitHub. Heck, I am constantly learning about new GitHub
>>> features, APIs, and best practices myself. But I find it to be an
>>> incredibly powerful platform for moving open source, distributed software development forward.
>>> I am not telling anyone to use GitHub if they don't want to, but I
>>> want to dispel a few myths I've heard recently:
>>>
>>> ------------
>>>
>>> * Myth #1 : GitHub creates a barrier to entry.
>>> * "To contribute to a project on GitHub, you need to use the
>>> command-line. It's not for non-coders."
>>>
>>> GitHub != git. While GitHub was initially built for publishing and
>>> sharing code via integration with git, all GitHub functionality can
>>> be performed directly through the web gui. In fact, GitHub can even
>>> be used as your sole coding environment. There are other tools in the "eco-system"
>>> that allow non-coders to contribute documentation, issue reporting,
>>> and more to a project.
>>>
>>> ------------
>>>
>>> * Myth #2 : GitHub is for sharing/publishing code.
>>> * "I would be fun to have a wiki for more durable poetry (github
>>> unfortunately would be a barrier to many)."
>>>
>>> GitHub can be used to collaborate on and publish other types of
>>> content as well. For example, GitHub has a great wiki component*
>>> (as well as a website component). In a number of ways, has less of a "barrier to entry"
>>> than our Code4Lib wiki.
>>>
>>> While the path of least resistance requires a "repository" to have a
>>> wiki, public repos cost nothing and can consist of a simple "README" file.
>>> The wiki can be locked down to a team, or it can be writable by
>>> anyone with a github account. You don't need to do anything via
>>> command-line, don't need to understand "git-flow", and you don't
>>> even need to learn wiki markup to write content. All you need is an
>>> account and something to say, just like any wiki. Log in, go to the
>>> anti-harassment policy wiki, and see for yourself:
>>> https://github.com/code4lib/**antiharassment-policy/wiki<https://git
>>> hub.com/code4lib/antiharassment-policy/wiki>
>>>
>>> * The github wiki even has an API (via Gollum) that you can use to
>>> retrieve raw or formatted wiki content, write new content, and
>>> collect various meta data about the wiki as a whole:
>>> https://github.com/code4lib/**antiharassment-policy/wiki/_**access<h
>>> ttps://github.com/code4lib/antiharassment-policy/wiki/_access>
>>>
>>> ------------
>>>
>>> * Myth #3 : GitHub is person-centric.
>>>> "(And as a further aside, there’s plenty to dislike about github as
>>>> well, from it’s person-centric view of projects (rather than
>>>> team-centric)..."
>>> Untrue. GitHub is very team centered when using organizational
>>> accounts, which formalize authorization controls for projects, among other things:
>>> https://github.com/blog/674-**introducing-organizations<https://gith
>>> ub.com/blog/674-introducing-organizations>
>>>
>>> ------------
>>>
>>> * Myth #4 : GitHub is monopolizing open source software development.
>>>> "... to its unfortunate centralizing of so much free/open source
>>>> software on one platform.)"
>>> Convergence is not always a bad thing. GitHub provides a great, free
>>> service with lots of helpful collaboration tools beyond version control.
>>> It's natural that people would flock there, despite having lots of
>>> other options.
>>>
>>> ------------
>>>
>>> -Shaun
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 2/19/13 5:35 PM, Erik Hetzner wrote:
>>>
>>>> At Sat, 16 Feb 2013 06:42:04 -0800, Karen Coyle wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> gitHub may have excellent startup documentation, but that startup
>>>>> documentation describes git in programming terms mainly using *nx
>>>>> commands. If you have never had to use a version control system
>>>>> (e.g. if you do not write code, especially in a shared environment), "clone"
>>>>> "push" "pull" are very poorly described. The documentation is all
>>>>> in terms of *nx commands. Honestly, anything where this is in the
>>>>> documentation:
>>>>>
>>>>> On Windows systems, Git looks for the |.gitconfig| file in the
>>>>> |$HOME| directory (|%USERPROFILE%| in Windows’ environment), which
>>>>> is
>>>>> |C:\Documents and Settings\$USER| or |C:\Users\$USER| for most
>>>>> |people,
>>>>> depending on version (|$USER| is |%USERNAME%| in Windows’ environment).
>>>>>
>>>>> is not going to work for anyone who doesn't work in Windows at the
>>>>> command line.
>>>>>
>>>>> No, git is NOT for non-coders.
>>>>>
>>>> For what it’s worth, this programmer finds git’s interface pretty
>>>> terrible. I prefer mercurial (hg), but I don’t know if it’s any
>>>> better for people who aren’t familar with a command line.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> http://mercurial.selenic.com/**guide/<http://mercurial.selenic.com/
>>>> guide/>
>>>>
>>>> (As a general rule, for every programmer who prefers tool A, and
>>>> says that everybody should use it, there’s a programmer who
>>>> disparages tool A, and advocates tool B. So take what we say with a
>>>> grain of salt!)
>>>>
>>>> (And as a further aside, there’s plenty to dislike about github as
>>>> well, from it’s person-centric view of projects (rather than
>>>> team-centric) to its unfortunate centralizing of so much free/open
>>>> source software on one platform.)
>>>>
>>>> best, Erik
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Sent from my free software system <http://fsf.org/>.
>>>>
>>>>
>> --
>> Karen Coyle
>> [log in to unmask] http://kcoyle.net
>> ph: 1-510-540-7596
>> m: 1-510-435-8234
>> skype: kcoylenet
>>
--
Karen Coyle
[log in to unmask] http://kcoyle.net
ph: 1-510-540-7596
m: 1-510-435-8234
skype: kcoylenet
________________________________
P Please consider the environment before you print this email.
"The contents of this e-mail (including any attachments) may be confidential and/or subject to copyright. Any unauthorised use,
distribution, or copying of the contents is expressly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please advise the sender
by return e-mail or telephone and then delete this e-mail together with all attachments from your system."
|
