This is definitely a must. I propose to use https://www.drupal.org/project/revisioning

This way we create an additional role (or even use the built in authenticated user role that is assigned to anyone who register). Then all users with this role can suggest changes, and admin just have to compare and accept the changes.

This turns our site in a controlled wiki. It sounds scary but will probably works perfectly well.

We would only restrict more if we get into problems (spam or too many revisions to moderate - I highly doubt it will happen)

Sounds good. We already have revisions currently but I am not sure if its the same module.

We would also need some kind of notification system so moderators get an email when there is still to review/publish.

it uses the same revision mechanism, but adds some new permissions

• creation of new revisions
• publishing of revisions

Which I intend to assign to separate role to achieve what we'd like.

Unable to sleep because this really bugs me. Why on earth would i spend days worth of time honing something if I had any malicious intentions? I have my own name and face readily visible on the /team page. Which with the current state of language quality, leaves a foul taste in my mouth.

If I am not trusted, then why trust every single change i made to the news post i worked on, to the point where it was sent out, as per exactly where I left it? You asked for help, you got it. There is no functional system that relies on people where there isnt some level of trust put in them, and i hope i havent brough shame to the opportunity i was given.

I fail to see how any existing content has been damaged, since i dont break anything that isnt already broken, nor am i careless about leaving anything in a broken state. I started working on this, because the current opensource page, is awful, and by that i mean the point is it is trying to make, not where it is made.

I have some level of respect for changing pages, but it is reserved for things that make sense.

Reinventing trust isnt going to work, nor does apertus have the "admins" other than what i am able to offer, to oversee changes done.

Which leaves us back to the current dissaray of communicating apertus to people, it is unacceptable, and it doesnt need a design-by-beraucracy set of changes, it needs that major overhaul. Getting ahold of Sebastian is also broken, and thats where the process breaks down. The many times it has been tried, he never fails to be busy, or partly so, with other things, which is good.

I must say I do admire him, because he does the best he can to spread himself thin on the language effort side of things too.

Up until now i have checked in with him to make sure we are in agreement, and lay out the plans ahead.

If we could instead focus energy spent goto-ing sebastian on providing me with feedback, which I ask for, that would be great. The feedback i was able to source from apertus IRC, i think mostly came from backers, which is good, but also an area where the project is lacking, as it is unwelcoming to new members such as myself to have little to no follow-up, and not see any real sense of direction left behind in the actual pages i work on.

If you have an opinion, can I ask of you to do what i have done, test my changes beforehand and after, (or the old pages without explaining, if you want to see what the problem is), on regular non-technical users, with no prior knowledge of apertus. See T92

Edit: (on topic this time) Reinventing the wheel on this task isnt needed. But if so, it could be made easy to clone a page and edit it in a non-visible draft area. As of right now that way of doing it doesnt offer much over just emailing changes and someone manually seeing to that they are implemented, because the online editor is quirky, and doesnt actually produce the html you tell it to in full-html mode. After a few good changes, they can have some level of power to change sites themselves. Needless to say people helping out is currently almost a non-problem.

If we look to much bigger wikipedia, sabotage by and large does not come from established members. Worst case someone puts down n amount hard labour, (of which apertus can reap the fruits thereof), only to deface a site for 15 minutes with dickbutt.

Thank you, and good night.

I think there is misunderstanding here. What we want to implement (and the technical solution I proposed) is to open much more the website to let more people help, not the contrary.

The revisioning module allows to have better collaboration and allows staging of content (content is enhanced progressively, and at some point it is released as a new version). Think of it as a draft system. You can read about it here : https://www.drupal.org/project/revisioning

With this in place, my intent is to allow any registered user to propose changes, and have a few editors approve them. You cannot be more open than that as a community and company project. Well yes, you can but then you are wikipedia :-)

Let's keep the technical aspect here and discuss the specific content you mention on other tasks / irc / mail.

Well, people helping out is a problem apertus does not currently have. It is just me changing things, and for the time being all my work is reverted back to the latest revision that doesnt have my name on it. In terms of access, i had it, and now it has been revoked. Why, i dont know.

"Chance to damage content" is the choice of words. The system to be implemented seems to rely on feedback. All of which seemingly go on behind the scenes as far as i am concerned.

Does this "damage" have anything to do with what i did, or other things i might have had access to in the control panel?

I only care about the content, and since i am the only member changing it, i imagine listening to me has some kind of relevance to the process of being open. Meanwhile it just sits there.

Dont know what was wrong with the old system that is now fixed, if you look at the actual content side of things, i dont see the argument for how it being in a changing state for how long it would be so anyway, is preferable.

If this behind the scenes feedback could be directed in the way of whoever changes it, sure, but is that me, or is it not me? If that person is still Sebastian, who still has full rights, then we are back to the situation which in his own words "breaks down the process" --- of actually doing something.

It seems apertus likes doing things in terms of bugreports, I just like getting things done. Hopefully the revisionist system is somewhat better in that aspect, with respect to where the content is and where t92 stands currently. Should i make a bugreport where i explain the rationale for the essence of my changes?

In T62#1250, @allan wrote:

Well, people helping out is a problem apertus does not currently have. It is just me changing things, and for the time being all my work is reverted back to the latest revision that doesnt have my name on it. In terms of access, i had it, and now it has been revoked. Why, i dont know.

Be assured there are already multiple volunteers editing the pages. We are still experimenting ways to open editing access to more people, like you. But I'd like you to understand that we cannot change a page like that on the live website without at least discussing it, that's why the current system doesn't work, and why Sebastian had to revert the changes you made. Not because the changes are bad or because you made them, but because I raised some concerns that might be valid or not, but at least meaning there is room for discussion. Our previous way of working was to work together on some google doc, and believe me, sometimes it takes days with 5 people working together to perfect the wording of a page.

Maybe we can continue to work this way (google doc), and have a few people admins the page accordingly.

"Chance to damage content" is the choice of words. The system to be implemented seems to rely on feedback. All of which seemingly go on behind the scenes as far as i am concerned.

Does this "damage" have anything to do with what i did, or other things i might have had access to in the control panel?

I think Sebastian referred to the fact that html editing on the site is a bit tricky (or fragile, or broken :-)) and we'd like to allow non technical users to participate, having proper versioning allow to revert changes in case some html is not properly closed and break the layout for instance.

Creating several roles also allows to give access to more drupal features.

I only care about the content, and since i am the only member changing it, i imagine listening to me has some kind of relevance to the process of being open. Meanwhile it just sits there.

We unfortunately have to care about other things, in random order : spam bots, people with bad intent (or hidden agenda, if it's the right word), people who work for a few weeks than stop leaving half finished work, non technical users, people who don't like google docs, coordinating translations when a page is changed etc...

Dont know what was wrong with the old system that is now fixed, if you look at the actual content side of things, i dont see the argument for how it being in a changing state for how long it would be so anyway, is preferable.

If this behind the scenes feedback could be directed in the way of whoever changes it, sure, but is that me, or is it not me? If that person is still Sebastian, who still has full rights, then we are back to the situation which in his own words "breaks down the process" --- of actually doing something.

It seems apertus likes doing things in terms of bugreports, I just like getting things done. Hopefully the revisionist system is somewhat better in that aspect, with respect to where the content is and where t92 stands currently. Should i make a bugreport where i explain the rationale for the essence of my changes?

I replied there with a proposal. don't hesitate to reply there also.

Ok, but the content that i see a problem with is still problematic. To the point where i just flat out changed it.

I do want the discussion, since im only the one person i cant source anything but the opinions of people outside the project.

Ill keep working on my draft, but its hard to do unless im told what the issue is. Thats the communication we need. Everyone agrees on the problem, when everyone agrees to the fix, thats the work. And it is arduous and time-consuming, but id rather be doing that than figuring out the beaurocarcy.

I agree with more roles, but who is who? I applied for web editor at T111 if that is someone else, point me in their direction.

Its the "we" that cares about other issues, vs the me who isnt a bot, has good intentions, and just wants to get it done whatever it takes.

As far as im concerned the content is in a state of half-done between barely acceptable and good right now. That reflects badly on the project moreso than seeing the content change does, even if for a time it looks "live".

Wikipedia works because its a minimum of everything, and its vibrant. Rather be that than a press statement from some behemoth company. There is good and bad with everything, but being pretentious is what being too conservative is, because the content suffers under too little hands-on.

Drupal revisioning sounds fine, along with T111 it will bring in more people, i think its a good way of testing the waters without risking being "defaced", implement it. I think the right place for a design-document for the website is the wiki, which im currently trying to get my head around.

I'm fully busted today time-wise, but will get back to you as soon as I have time. Let's find a good solution to work together :-)

i have an account and can edit pages, but if i edit an image, the "Server durchsuchen" button next to "URL" don't work

Access denied
You are not authorized to access this page.

Can i get access to it? https://apertus.org/user/632

Made davidak and allan "Writers" on the website, we'll see how it goes.

Super duper thanks :)))) My changes went live right away on the FAQ page, latest two revisions are made by me.
Dont know how to review changes yet.

Proofreading changes is slightly different from authorizing them, it could be handy to have that as a step to take some strain off the moderators, but it would make for a false sense of security if it was given out right away, since two accounts could mark each others changes as good with the intention of malicious changes slipping through.

No need really, the system works very well now as far as i can tell.

There is even a visual editor, so much easier to work with :)