Prior to joining PIUG, I watched the PIUG discussion forum for a number of years. What caused me to finally pay the nominal fee to join PIUG was the openness of the forum and access to a talented group of peers. Questions were asked in ignorance and answers were provided by knowledgeable PIUG members. This openness seems to be missing from the wiki.
I know some of the root causes for this lack of dialog (corporate posting policy, permanence of the postings, lack of time, keeping a competitive advantage, etc.). I will freely admit that my employees do not post for fear of giving our firm a bad name. For all of us, our professional image is very important and hiding our faults is sometimes a crucial part of that.
All Blogs and Discussion Forums run into the same problems with regard to openness. Allowing fully anonymous postings leads to 'flame wars' by the lowest common denominator. But allowing only named members carefully protecting their images leads to a graveyard.
I would like to suggest a middle ground. I would like to have anonymous posting available to registered PIUG members within the PIUG wiki.
To implement this, we could create a number of user names (Anon User 1, Anon User 2, etc.) that would have wiki log-in information accessible only via the members-only portion of the wiki. (I've quizzed Tom Wolff about this and without giving approval or disapproval to the idea; he admitted it was technically feasible.)
With the user name and password known, a normally logged in PIUG member could log out of their normal account and log in as Anon User X. This would allow them to post questions, reply to a thread, and generally say things that would otherwise not be written (for better or worse).
To keep things in control and to keep the log-in and password from being posted for non-members, we could change the password once every week or two.
Is this something that would stimulate discussions on the wiki? Please let me/us know if this would encourage participation.
Examples of possible posts lending themselves to anonymity: A vendor viewpoint on the Ric V diatribe, the inside scoop on the IRF funding issue, user questions about tools answered by other users, discussions of ideas seen in meeting presentations, and heated discussion on certification and training.