Sign in or 
Location: Make a Suggestion
Discussion: Private Sites
Category:
Discussion Forum /
General Discussion
Share this
PWXZEE1 |
80. RE: Private Sites
Apr 10 2008, 9:14 AM EDT
On another thread the same issue was addressed back in April 07, and it was indicated that it was a suggestion being actively looked in to. Then the thread petered out. I hope this thread does not peter out, as this is a much needed/desired function. Gets my vote as being probably my top request (and, as someone else kindly pointed out, I have made lots of requests (well, I call them suggestions :-) ) Do you find this valuable? |
|
PWXZEE1 |
81. RE: Private Sites - OR LIMITED USERS site
Apr 10 2008, 9:42 AM EDT
Actually, we have a bit of problem of definition here. "Private Sites" were announced ages ago. My site is already "Private". I guess what we are asking for here really now is something more. Perhaps a LIMITED USERS site. That is, a site where only the Administrator can invite people, or perhaps even can register people rather than invite them. So that there is real control over who can access the site. Cutting out the present system (as I understand it) that is inhererntly risky, allowing ordinary users to invite other people, and then they too can invite more. Not much favoured in corporate land! Is that what we are really taking about now. A LIMITED USERS feature/function ? 1 out of 1 found this valuable. Do you? |
radidio |
82. RE: Private Sites - OR LIMITED USERS site
Apr 11 2008, 12:07 AM EDT
"Actually, we have a bit of problem of definition here.The word "private" still captures the request in a generic way: in the sense that the site really is private for those in the wiki ... Maybe the focus should be on having an Invite Capability toggle for all member roles - with only the Admin able to toggle 2 out of 2 found this valuable. Do you? |
|
TangoTx |
83. RE: Private Sites - OR LIMITED USERS site
Apr 11 2008, 7:59 PM EDT
"The word "private" still captures the request in a generic way: in the sense that the site really is private for those in the wiki ...doesn't really matter to me what you call it limited, toggle, it is all about the invite function, without the ability to limit the right to invite then the site will never be "private" 1 out of 1 found this valuable. Do you? |
DigitalX |
84. RE: Private Sites - OR LIMITED USERS site
Apr 12 2008, 9:59 AM EDT
Most people now know not to invite anyone to a private wiki without the creator's permission. Give everyone a warning when they first join not to invite anyone. Don't be to tough but just tell them they are banned if they do.
1
out of
1 found this valuable.
Do you?
|
|
Posted Anonymously |
85. RE: Private Sites - OR LIMITED USERS site
Apr 12 2008, 10:23 AM EDT
"Most people now know not to invite anyone to a private wiki without the creator's permission. Give everyone a warning when they first join not to invite anyone. Don't be to tough but just tell them they are banned if they do."I think the fact that you used the word "most" proves the point, I have people that will not use my site unless there is an assurance more than getting a hand slapped. 1 out of 1 found this valuable. Do you? |
|
DigitalX |
86. RE: Private Sites - OR LIMITED USERS site
Apr 12 2008, 10:31 AM EDT
Most is everyone with a wetpaint site. Tell them not to do it. If you really trust them then they won't. Telling the person you trust not to do it will work.
Do you find this valuable?
|
|
Posted Anonymously |
87. RE: Private Sites - OR LIMITED USERS site
Apr 12 2008, 12:46 PM EDT
"Most is everyone with a wetpaint site. Tell them not to do it. If you really trust them then they won't. Telling the person you trust not to do it will work."not to be argumentative but in all due respect, if you tell people not to speed do they do it? If you make it a law do they always obey it? Don't get me wrong I have a trust in most I will invite to my site but some are new to my private group and I do not know them personally. We are a travel group and we have new folks join us each year that I have never met. They want to meet the rest of the group that has traveled together for 7 years and share personal information but do not want to chance some of that being seen by someone not traveling with us. My point is that the site is not private without the invite control to outside folks that do not have a wiki. 1 out of 1 found this valuable. Do you? |
|
radidio |
88. RE: Private Sites - OR LIMITED USERS site
Apr 12 2008, 1:13 PM EDT
"Most is everyone with a wetpaint site. Tell them not to do it. If you really trust them then they won't. Telling the person you trust not to do it will work."I need to jump in here again. With certain groups, a request to not invite will work just fine. However, for my needs (and those of others here), I need to have the control when I don't have such a group. If you look at some of the discussion in this area, I am trying to coordinate the use of wikis as instructional tools to supplement our course management system. For me, Wetpaint is far and away the easiest and best-designed wiki product I have seen. I have had a lot of success in showing faculty and students how to set up their own sites. Hence faculty training - a huge and necessary component that needs to be considered when adopting any application - is not as daunting with WietPaint. In short, I believe that Wetpaint is the best product for my campus. However, I cannot recommend to my campus as a whole that Wetpaint be a supported option b/c of the lack of invitation control. As more and more schools - at all educational levels - are adopting wikis for classroom use, this seems an incredibly serious obstacle. Other providers such as PBWiki and Wikispaces, which are making big inroads into the educational sphere, don't have the invitation "hole". Moreover, these providers are starting to adopt some of Wetpaint's innovations. 3 out of 3 found this valuable. Do you? |
|
Posted Anonymously |
89. RE: Private Sites - OR LIMITED USERS site
Apr 12 2008, 1:54 PM EDT
it's nice to see that some of the wiki providers see how important this is, and don't just continue to argue that saying "don't do it" is enough
Do you find this valuable?
|
|
DigitalX |
90. RE: Private Sites - OR LIMITED USERS site
Apr 12 2008, 2:01 PM EDT
"not to be argumentative but in all due respect, if you tell people not to speed do they do it? If you make it a law do they always obey it? Don't get me wrong I have a trust in most I will invite to my site but some are new to my private group and I do not know them personally. We are a travel group and we have new folks join us each year that I have never met. They want to meet the rest of the group that has traveled together for 7 years and share personal information but do not want to chance some of that being seen by someone not traveling with us. My point is that the site is not private without the invite control to outside folks that do not have a wiki."I know that this is a good feature. I want it too. But I am giving advice on what to do now. You should have messaged the person a few times and make sure that you have their trust. That is the best thing to do now when creating a private wiki. This advice is so you can have more control of your private wiki currently. Do you find this valuable? |
|
Jason_wetpaint |
91. RE: Private Sites - OR LIMITED USERS site
Apr 12 2008, 2:49 PM EDT
What we're talking about now is the specific ability to limit Invitation privileges to a certain level of user on Private sites. Most likely, it will not be a setting that can be changed. It will be the same for all Private sites. So it's important that we answer one question right.That question is: What level of user? Here's my thoughts on it. Creator only: Too restrictive. If the creator of the wiki leaves the wiki, nobody else can ever send an invitation. Administrator & up: If the Creator has assigned an administrator or two, there is more leeway should the creator leave. However, administrators also have full control over the wiki. In order to give someone the permission to invite others to the wiki, you would have to give them permission to do everything else. It seems that this is a mismatch of authority. Moderator & up: This is where, in my opinion, the permission would be best suited. Moderators are trusted members of the wiki insofar as they can delete content, move and rename pages, revert changes, etc. They don't have complete control over the wiki, but they are trusted to maintain the content. Invitation privileges seem to match with the idea of trusting someone with the content of the wiki. We'd like your thoughts. As I said earlier, this is something we're actively looking at. We'd like your opinion on this specific question. 3 out of 3 found this valuable. Do you? |
|
radidio |
92. RE: Private Sites - OR LIMITED USERS site
Apr 12 2008, 4:42 PM EDT
"Moderator & up: This is where, in my opinion, the permission would be best suited. Moderators are trusted members of the wiki insofar as they can delete content, move and rename pages, revert changes, etc. They don't have complete control over the wiki, but they are trusted to maintain the content. Invitation privileges seem to match with the idea of trusting someone with the content of the wiki.I agree that Moderator is the best place for the Invite/No Invite line, especially given their description on your Help FAQ: "Moderators help manage and guide the community in addition to creating content for the site." Having Invite permission will enable those chosen as Moderators to better assist in "managing and guiding the community". Thanks for looking into this. 1 out of 1 found this valuable. Do you? |
|
Posted Anonymously |
93. RE: Private Sites - OR LIMITED USERS site
Apr 12 2008, 5:33 PM EDT
I personally think that the line should be admin, since a creator which leaves would only want an admin to continue, if at all.
1
out of
1 found this valuable.
Do you?
|
|
Posted Anonymously |
94. RE: Private Sites - OR LIMITED USERS site
Apr 16 2008, 8:15 PM EDT
As a faculty member using Wetpaint for the first time this coming semester, I would like to see invite from moderator & up
2
out of
2 found this valuable.
Do you?
|
|
TangoTx |
95. RE: Private Sites - OR LIMITED USERS site
Apr 16 2008, 9:20 PM EDT
"As a faculty member using Wetpaint for the first time this coming semester, I would like to see invite from moderator & up"I would agree totally with anything as long as line is drawn I have 28 couples wanting to join my Wiki that will not until there is a line.....do the math Do you find this valuable? |
|
jaywitty |
96. RE: Private Sites - OR LIMITED USERS site
Apr 21 2008, 1:01 PM EDT
Moderator is an acceptable level to put the invite privileges at. I simply want to control who has access to edit my site. The easiest way to do this is to prevent users from being able to invite others to joint the wiki.
1
out of
1 found this valuable.
Do you?
|
jeremy_wetpaint |
97. RE: Private Sites - OR LIMITED USERS site
Apr 21 2008, 1:40 PM EDT
Thanks for all of your feedback on this issue. We will do our best to try to develop a solution for this as soon as is feasible.
1
out of
1 found this valuable.
Do you?
|
|
radidio |
98. RE: Private Sites - OR LIMITED USERS site
Apr 21 2008, 2:03 PM EDT
"Thanks for all of your feedback on this issue. We will do our best to try to develop a solution for this as soon as is feasible."Thanks! As indicated in the responses, almost anywhere you put the line will be OK - as long as it's there. 2 out of 2 found this valuable. Do you? |
|
Posted Anonymously |
99. RE: Private Sites - OR LIMITED USERS site
Apr 23 2008, 9:07 PM EDT
Please find a fix for this we are waiting and waiting and waitng and waiting!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Stop promisung and DELIVER
Do you find this valuable?
|
