On Sat, Feb 27, 2016 at 4:28 PM, Rudolf Großmann wrote:
> Brian Wolff gmail.com> writes:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> Can you clarify what you mean by deployed with mediawiki? Do you mean
>> deployed on a wikimedia project (e.g. Wikipedia)? If so, which ones? Or all
>> of them? Or do you mean have it be included in the default mediawiki
>> tarball release?
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Bawolff
>
> Hi,
>
> The GeoGebra team and I would be glad to be able to enhance Wikipedia by
> GeoGebra drawings. (I avoid the word "applet", because Java isn't used any
> more.) I though a way to achieve this is to get the GeoGebra extension
> deployed with the MediaWiki software, to be more precise, the
> software you get at https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Download - what you call
> "default mediawiki tarball release", I think.
>
> Please let me know if there is a better way. You mentioned the
> "wikimedia project Wikipedia". Will it be easier just to get the extension
> installed at Wikipedia (e.g. like it is at wikis.zum.de) and not bothering
> with MediaWiki?
>
> Rudi
The extensions that are included with
https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Download have no bearing on which
extensions are used on Wikipedia. We don't have a fixed process for
deciding which extensions should be included with the MediaWiki
tarball. So far we've basically included just the extensions that are
both super-popular and super-general. I'm not sure if GeoGerba would
be a good choice for the MediaWiki tarball, since its somewhat of a
specific use case, that a great many wikis do not have (But that's
just my opinion).
For Wikipedia in general:
Getting an extension deployed on Wikipedia can be a challenging
process, a process that often is very frustrating. Usually it has to
pass a code review check, and a security check (among other things).
Even getting people to do those reviews can be challenging, (There's
only a small number of people who can do deployment reviews, they are
very busy people, and deployment reviews are generally the sort of
thing that takes a reviewer a long time to do. Especially in this
case, it involves what is probably a very large javascript library).
In order to get it deployed on Wikipedia, it would probably help (This
is just a stage 1 list of things, there would be other things to do
after this. I didn't even look at any of the js code):
*The php code followed MediaWiki core coding conventions
*Javascript was loaded via resource loader (external js libraries
don't have to follow MW coding conventions, but it would help if any
js specific only to the extension did). All loaded javascript should
be included in the extension (Loading js hosted on other sites is not
allowed on Wikipedia in order to protect user privacy)
*Given that (Assuming I'm understanding correctly) this is basically
for viewing a fixed file (As opposed to something that people edit in
their browser), it would probably be better to implement this as a
MediaHandler extension, as opposed to a tag extension. I doubt that
embedding base64 encoded files directly into pages is going to be ok.
Ultimately, you'd also have to get Wikipedia editors to agree that the
extension would be useful (Getting Wikipedia editors to agree on
anything is harder than it looks)
--
-bawolff
___
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
