Ideally, the best way to fix wiki vandalism is to prevent it from happening in the first place. Only give editing rights to specific user and/or usergroups. Honestly, do you really want to be another Wikia or Wikipedia?
I agree with this. I think it is a mistake even to allow everyone to edit Wikipedia. If they limited editing to people who donate $1/year, this could eliminate Wikipedia's financial problems and also 99% of spam problems. (Spammers do not like to pay even 10 cents, I suspect.)
However... I do hope to have a large project. Also, totally unlike Wikipedia, it is
essential to my plan to allow members to post SEO-active links. (No javascript, no "nofollow.") I am hoping that, because I will require $1 payment, I will know who they are and they cannot re-join with 1000 Hotmail addresses. And also, because I allow members to post SEO links, they will be eager to stay off the naughty list. Nonetheless, I do expect some numbskulls to post their porn, viagra and wow-gold links. Maybe also phishing. Maybe someone goes postal and deletes 300 pages of valid work. I would like the capability to "reverse" this!
But... if this slows downloads to 40 seconds... I agree it's not worth it! I am grateful to JAXEL for being so transparent and sincere about the pros and cons of his program, and even giving us the benefit of his vast experience with other programs.
krystofo: sounds like you would benefit from a feature: List all edits by a Member.
Yes but instead of an "all edits by" list, how about this on every page (pretending that the thread you are now reading is a wiki page)...
The Native Wiki page was created by dvsDave 2010.08.08. Last edited by Landergate 2010.10.08, Andy.N 2010.11.03 2010.11.04, Josh111 2011.01.03 2011.01.04, Brogan 2011.01.03 2011.01.04, fos 2011.01.04, Jaxel 2010.11.04 2011.01.03 2011.01.09, Digital Doctor 2010.10.08 2010.12.24 2011.01.03 2011.01.04 2011.01.05 2011.01.09 and krystofo 2011.01.03 2011.01.04 2011.01.05 2011.01.09.
I.e., "krystofo" did the latest edit, so he is listed last, followed by all the dates of his edits within the last-9-editors time frame. Digital Doctor is second-last, because he did the second-latest edit. If he or anyone else edits after krystofo, whether a new or an old contributor, then that person (along with whatever are his edit dates) will be moved down to the end of the list. Perhaps there is a better format. Anyway I hope this conveys my idea.