h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Traveller in Time drawing landscapes at 'Fantastic Worlds' < U539871 >
"There are more, but this is one I have 'contributed' to."

Yes... that sounds like a much more secure idea. But is it equally fast? And is this cause to abandon the Collaborator project that we have just established?

Traveller in Time on his head
"As long as the italics can not arrange security, we can not beside keeping the update window open, I think a group account is all we can do safely.

Something I more or less tryed to point out from the beginning.

How contributors have to be allowed is a good question. Somewhere the discussion came to just announce the account to a limited group of researchers. (an abuser can not possibly read all threads)

And by way of communicating the password, we have the private conversations. < F1377543?thread=416427 > Just only inviting researchers known to be 'good' and 'writers' should be enough."

OK. I get what you mean about keeping the Update Details window open in case something goes wrong and I agree we should try to do that (but we can hardly have the window open constantly can we?)

You say 'private conversations' - are you referring to the ican feature?, because the thread you referenced doesn't mention it.

By "a group account is all we can do safely", are you referring to the group account that we have set up here (Collaborator), or the account similar to 'Fantastyc'?

(I am sorry that I am taking time to understand what you mean... I've never made anything on h2g2 collaboratively before and I'm not a particularly good communicator as it is. )

Traveller in Time on his head
"I can imagine some collaborate account styles:

Fully open Wiki style, this is HooToo not Wikipedia.

Limited group account only selected visitors are invited

Limited group account anyone can come and ask to be allowed

Account with one operator, contributions are done to threads
operator has to do lots of work, little writing by self.

Obviously there will be some other kinds of collaboration possible.
Like the 'Open Source' project, some time ago on the front page. I never got to posting to one of the threads as either someone covered the topic just before me or I was too busy reading them. Eventually I started some entries . . . still 'under construction'
"

OK, so which collaborative method do you prefer? I would say that the 'selected visitors' and 'one operator' styles could be best, but what do you think?

I'm not sure relying on iCan's one-to-one messaging is a good idea. That's not what it's for, after all, and there have been some comments regarding h2g2 users dominating/misusing this service.

I agree. We won't do that.

I think that 'combining' the ideas above would be useful. We could have a select amount of people who are given the password to the account, and these people get a badge, privileges and all the trimmings, and then they can be the team acting in the same way as your 'one operator' idea. I.e, people can submit things to threads, which the approved collaborator team would enact.

How about that?

A researcher could become initiated into the project by asking us, giving some details about themselves and their writing experiences, and then asked to send an e-mail requesting the password.

Traveller in Time trying to figure out who is talking
" That is one thing even on posting to the accout we should avoid.

Anyway I was trying to point 'Baryonic being' to the private thread we have.
What is abusive in this way of posting? "

The reason I used the Collaborator account to post was because my own account had, for some reason, temporarily reset itself.

Okay, I have changed the project a bit from open-to-all to send-an-e-mail-to-join; except for the fact that I have not yet changed the password. Please give your thoughts on the revamped Collaborator Project. Is it too complex? Is it secure enough? Should I change the password again periodically?

That was me by the way! Baryonic Being.

I should also say that I think advertising the project more is now a viable option.