No, there was no bug - people were just prevented from editing completely. But i see wiki edit comments in recent times on unprotected parts of a page like “As I can’t edit your template, can you please update XYZ…” e.g. Bisq page was a recent example of that.
Alright - I think we should unprotect most, even if more than on 5 pages etc. When I originally set the protections the vast majority of templates had zero protections. Agree with the sensitive info templates though.
deb tor+http://2s4yqjx5ul6okpp3f2gaunr2syex5jgbfpfvhxxbbjwnrsvbk5v3qbid.onion/debian buster main
deb tor+http://2s4yqjx5ul6okpp3f2gaunr2syex5jgbfpfvhxxbbjwnrsvbk5v3qbid.onion/debian buster-updates main
deb tor+http://5ajw6aqf3ep7sijnscdzw77t7xq4xjpsy335yb2wiwgouo7yfxtjlmid.onion/debian-security buster/updates main
is best because then it’s easiest to audit that anon-apt-sources-list matches Debian’s onion.debian.org.
best style is what default debian using (but clearnet version) which is without extra spaces for our example it will be like this:
deb tor+http://2s4yqjx5ul6okpp3f2gaunr2syex5jgbfpfvhxxbbjwnrsvbk5v3qbid.onion/debian buster main
deb tor+http://2s4yqjx5ul6okpp3f2gaunr2syex5jgbfpfvhxxbbjwnrsvbk5v3qbid.onion/debian buster-updates main
deb tor+http://5ajw6aqf3ep7sijnscdzw77t7xq4xjpsy335yb2wiwgouo7yfxtjlmid.onion/debian-security buster/updates main
I made an update to an arguably sensitive Wiki document and it got edited to oblivion (new to this Wiki structure - and especially to the Dev and Templates structure). Should I continue to try to make contributions?
Apart from the existing and former team members (particularly 0brand - come back man), very few people are making regular, significant contributions.
In recent times, all templates and nearly all (non-dev) pages have been edited mercilessly, regardless of the original author. That was for reasons like:
wiki consistency (formatting etc.)
grammar
clarity of expression
spelling
updated material/references
removing duplication with existing pages/entries
clear communication of content/procedures
factual accuracy
phrasing
shorter sentences/paragraphs
active versus passive language
better sectioning
defining unfamiliar terms
ensuring an adequate number of references/footnotes
citing original material/research
removing redundant information
shifting long text bodies into tables where possible
inserting images to improve instructions/concepts
cross-referencing with other Whonix entries
updating links
and more
A general principle of editing is that even with solid contributions by experienced authors, multiple revisions are normally required to improve it so it meets the publication standard (three rounds is often cited). That doesn’t mean all material will require editing, but the likelihood increases as the entries age or when the material is lengthy or complex.
The way I see it, other eyes on your material and proposed changes/possible improvements reinforces its value, rather than suggesting it it is somehow deficient.