Should a Wiki be open to the public?

Post Reply New Topic

In an earlier thread, there was....extensive support for a Wiki to hold information for discussions of Neurodiversity and other topics that might be of interest to (among others) WPers.

http://www.wrongplanet.net/postt232981.html

In just 6 days (and one hour), 41 WPers expressed support (11 weren’t sure on the details), out of 48 votes. The other votes were divided between various categories and "other".

One question that did come up was if the Wiki should allow public reading access, which is the subject of this poll.

I see pros and cons here to the question.

For the "Readership should not require registration", the general presumption out there is that Wiki's are open to general readership, unless they have a reason not to be (usually holding paywall content or something). Also, there may be concerns about creating new registration credentials for a new site.

For the "Registration should be required for readership", it would serve to encourage posters to provide additional content, and to limit disputes over any controversial topics.

A third option is "Closed Beta" (or is Alpha?), where the proposed Wiki would be limited to registered readers until sufficient content is available to "unveil" the Wiki. This would also encourage the resolution of debates and the setting of policies outside of public spaces.

[opinion=mine]

Readership should not require registration.

Entering information should require registration.

Editors should be degreed experts in the fields that they edit.

[/opinion]

No wonder so many voted for it, it's really something needed.
I like the third option and registered editors is a good idea. I say go for whatever people are most comfortable with - open or closed access.
It will be a work in progress for a long time, so then the question becomes what makes up sufficient content, but whichever model is chosen at least has to be a bit polished first

I agree with Fnord except for the suggestion of using degreed experts as editors. That's not how most Wikis work, and it would be unfair to always ask for free original research/work.
There are many experts without degrees and there's a lot of information available under a creative commons license, like all (most?) of Wikipedia, like 1401b said...

Readership should not require registration. Editing should.
Don't need a degree to edit something, methinks. We need people to voluntarily read the content to make sure everything's correct and that there are no trolls.
And...ice cream yes please

What would be the point of a wiki for ASD disorders if nobody could learn anything from it because it was closed?

I voted for close beta. I think kinks should be worked out before going public.

I feel that it should be open to the public. People need to be more educated.