Roan Kattouw wrote:
Mark Reginald James schreef:
We do have per-page edit restrictions, though. Traditionally, you'd solve this by creating two pages (one with pros, one with cons), which you can place different edit restrictions on, and jam them together using transclusion. But of course that doesn't really allow for cleanly rebutting points when you can't edit the point itself.
Roan, how specific can per-page edit restrictions be?
All you can really do is say: you must have right X to be able to edit this page, and you must have right Y to be able to move this page. X and Y may be the same, and multiple user groups can have the same right.
And could you explain the meaning of your last sentence.
If you want to enable certain users to rebut points but not edit the points themselves, you need to put them on different pages (because you can only restrict editing per-page, not on a more fine-grained basis such as per-section), which may cause some awkwardness when displaying the whole thing.
I'm beginning to think that even though debate topics are more contentious than the average Wikipedia article, it may indeed be OK to have totally open editing, relying on the reversion mechanism.
That's the wiki way, after all.
Thanks Roan.
Looks like the it's best then to start with a simple extension that forms and maintains two columns of paired blocks, and provides support for creating and navigating a tree-like page structure.