-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Greetings:
First, my thanks to the developers for this wonderful software....
Is it possible for an article to be "owned" by a particular user, who could then enable and disable editing of that article?
AL
*********************************************************************** This message is intended only for the use of the intended recipient and may contain information that is PRIVILEGED and/or CONFIDENTIAL. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, disclosure or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please destroy all copies of this message and its attachments and notify us immediately. ***********************************************************************
"AP" == Al Potter apotter@icsalabs.com writes:
AP> First, my thanks to the developers for this wonderful AP> software....
AP> Is it possible for an article to be "owned" by a particular AP> user, who could then enable and disable editing of that AP> article?
Kinda, but not really. Administrators (sysops) can _protect_ a page so that no one but other administrators can edit it. This might work, depending on what you want.
~ESP
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Evan:
Thank you for your reply.
evan@wikitravel.org said:
AP> Is it possible for an article to be "owned" by a particular AP> user, who could then enable and disable editing of that AP> article?Kinda, but not really. Administrators (sysops) can _protect_ a page so that no one but other administrators can edit it. This might work, depending on what you want.
I have found this feature, but wondered if it was available on a per-user basis. In other words, can a sysop be created with limited scope or authority?
AL
*********************************************************************** This message is intended only for the use of the intended recipient and may contain information that is PRIVILEGED and/or CONFIDENTIAL. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, disclosure or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please destroy all copies of this message and its attachments and notify us immediately. ***********************************************************************
"AP" == Al Potter apotter@icsalabs.com writes:
Me> Kinda, but not really. Administrators (sysops) can _protect_ a Me> page so that no one but other administrators can edit it. This Me> might work, depending on what you want.
AP> I have found this feature, but wondered if it was available on AP> a per-user basis. In other words, can a sysop be created with AP> limited scope or authority?
No. Just about the closest thing we have to that is watchlists: people are able to say that they're interested in particular pages, and get notified if they're changed. They can then change them back (if the information added was incorrect) or leave them alone.
It's probably worthwhile looking into SoftSecurity ideas, to see why this works so well:
http://www.usemod.com/cgi-bin/mb.pl?SoftSecurity
You can also check the WikiEngines list for other Wiki software that implements more "hard security" measures:
http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?WikiEngines
I haven't looked too closely, but I think Twiki might have user and group permissions for individual pages and page groups:
I doubt that MediaWiki will have these kinds of features soon.
~ESP
P.S. Now that I think of it, MediaWiki does have some whitelisting features available, but they're on a whole-site basis, not per-user, per-page.
mediawiki-l@lists.wikimedia.org