On 04/06/2013 12:38 PM, Lars Aronsson wrote:
The idea to invent a new name (Wikimedia) in 2003
was a mistake, as everybody in outreach can testify.
With hindsight, it was probably a mistake to make the names so similar.
I do think there should be distinct names. Wikimedia has great
projects
On 04/03/2013 04:19 PM, Quim Gil wrote:
Sure, but following this argument we could just have
dev.wikipedia.org, right?
All of the wikitech, wikimediafoundation, outrech and
other wikis together have fewer articles than the
English Wikipedia. All could fit on meta.wikimedia.org.
Unfortunately
On 04/04/2013 01:45 AM, Quim Gil wrote:
As far as I can see it is impossible to solve the puzzle without
changing something and upsetting someone.
Well, no. There is always a possibility.
We can detach the Wikitech contributors prototype development from any
content migration and leave
Erik Moeller wrote:
Having all technical contributors directed to wikitech.wikimedia.org
would address that - it would introduce them to a magical world of
dev-ops unicorns and PHP rainbows at the same time. And having
mediawiki.org more clearly dedicated to the product would allow it to
shine
On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 11:21 PM, Quim Gil q...@wikimedia.org wrote:
Well, no. There is always a possibility.
We can detach the Wikitech contributors prototype development from any
content migration and leave mediawiki.org undisrupted during this first
phase.
Wikitech has the basic software
On 04/05/2013 01:25 PM, Steven Walling wrote:
This is a much better way to move forward, and I'm happy to help
try out any features related to structured user pages, projects, events,
etc. when you're ready for that.
Thank you very much! All the input received this week has been very
useful
Mark A. Hershberger wrote:
I haven't understood the resistance of the WMF to use SMW in more
places, but putting it on MW.o would really make MW.o's non-WMF focus
clear.
If the Wikimedia Foundation put Semantic MediaWiki on MediaWiki.org, that
would mean that the Wikimedia Foundation would be
Hey,
Out of curiosity, what's the largest wiki to use Semantic MediaWiki?
That depends on how you defined largest. If you want a list of public
wikis (which of course is not complete) by property value count, then here
you go: http://wikiapiary.com/wiki/Semantic_statistics
SMW is used on many
On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 2:15 AM, Jeroen De Dauw jeroended...@gmail.comwrote:
Hey,
Out of curiosity, what's the largest wiki to use Semantic MediaWiki?
That depends on how you defined largest. If you want a list of public
wikis (which of course is not complete) by property value count, then
On Wed, Apr 3, 2013 at 3:06 PM, Steven Walling steven.wall...@gmail.com wrote:
The best way to approach a
project like this is not to propose an up-front migration of an entire wiki
to a new piece of software, just to prototype a few new features.
I think the potential migration of content to
Hey,
I'd say it's well informed paranoia. SMW is used on some largish wikis at
Wikia and it apparently causes issues very often. The largest wiki with SMW
at Wikia is very small in comparison to a lot of WMF wikis.
SMW has historically had a touch of the featuritis. Most of its features
Thank you for the vivid discussion about the potential future roles of
http://mediawiki.org and http://wikitech.wikimedia.org
I have updated
http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Technical_communications/Dev_wiki_consolidation#Proposed_solution
accordingly.
On 04/03/2013 03:51 PM, Steven Walling
I think we should consolidate wikitech and mediawiki. If wikipedia.org can
fit all the world's knowledge, how come we can't fit all our technical
know-how on one site? The fragmentation is unnecessary and arbitrary, it
confuses most newcomers and those not paying attention to the proper
separation
On Thu, 04 Apr 2013 00:10:38 -0700, Erik Moeller e...@wikimedia.org
wrote:
I think the potential migration of content to wikitech and the
potential use of certain MW extensions to improve the user experience
are legitimately separate issues.
Yeah. It seems like some are suggesting that some
On 04/03/2013 08:27 PM, Ori Livneh wrote:
Before we can say anything with confidence about what
newcomers truly need, we need to do some usability testing and
research. Because newcomers are generally voiceless, there is an
unconscious tendency to project onto them a set of subjective
Hi,
I'm not at all concerned about the rate at which you iterate -- it isn't
about how fast you put out the shiny and new, but whether the assumptions
that motivate this big undertaking are testable and falsifiable. Before we
can say anything with confidence about what newcomers truly
On 04/04/2013 12:10 AM, Erik Moeller wrote:
If the migration is merited, it is likely merited irrespective of
whether we use SocialProfile, LQT, SMW, SMF, etc.
In theory yes, but in practice there are some associations:
* Contributors and the docs relevant for them should be in the same
On 04/04/2013 03:22 AM, Jeroen De Dauw wrote:
I fully agree with you when speaking about Wikipedia or whatnot. SMW, like
any software, has it's issues. Knowing these I think it'd be a bad idea to
try to deploy it on Wikipedia or Commons or whatever in its current state.
Thank you for this. I
On 04/04/2013 03:22 AM, Jeroen De Dauw wrote:
SMW will make any wiki uber-complicated and explode. This certainly does
not include concerns with deployment on the big WMF project wikis, which
should be taken seriously.
As a point of anecdotal data, I've used SMW with success at two of my
past
On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 11:59 PM, Marc A. Pelletier m...@uberbox.org wrote:
So yeah; perhaps SMW has issues that makes deployment to the bigger
content wikis problematic, but rejecting it for the smaller data-based
ones on a kneejerk is, at best, misguided.
It wasn't knee jerk the time it was
On 04/04/2013 10:04 AM, K. Peachey wrote:
Plus we already have another system that is getting worked on and
rolled out to a few of the production wikis that will seem to do
similar features (based on comments in this thread already).
I'm honestly not familiar enough with Wikidata to be able to
Keeping a single wiki seems to be the most sensible approach. I agree with
Erik that there are good ways to separate different types of content, such
as namespaces, and I agree with Yuri that wikitech is the best choice of
name, since it is a superset of mediawiki.
I think we should agree on this
On Tuesday, April 2, 2013 at 5:45 AM, Quim Gil wrote:
I have been drafting a proposal to attract new contributors, help them
settle in, and connect them to interesting tasks. It turns out that many
of these problems are not unique to new contributors. We suffer them as
well and we are
On Wed, Apr 3, 2013 at 3:30 AM, Ori Livneh o...@wikimedia.org wrote:
On Tuesday, April 2, 2013 at 5:45 AM, Quim Gil wrote:
I have been drafting a proposal to attract new contributors, help them
settle in, and connect them to interesting tasks. It turns out that many
of these problems
Ori Livneh wrote:
The core of MediaWiki is in my mind still radical and exciting: you make
or find a page, click edit, and just type into it.
This feels like a hyper-idealized version of MediaWiki.
Describe the page creation process in WordPress and then describe the page
creation process in
On Wed, Apr 3, 2013 at 9:06 AM, MZMcBride z...@mzmcbride.com wrote:
Describe the page creation process in WordPress and then describe the page
creation process in MediaWiki. The MediaWiki process is three times as
long and includes three times more caveats.
Maybe I'm missing something, but
Ryan Lane wrote:
mediawiki.org will still exist to document MediaWiki. The domain name
itself makes it fairly ill-fit to document our non-MediaWiki software
documentation.
I follow Wikimedia pretty closely and I have no idea what the distinction
between the two wikis (wikitech.wikimedia.org and
Tyler Romeo wrote:
Maybe I'm missing something, but what about the MediaWiki page creation
process isn't find a page, click edit, and just type into it?
Sure, that's easy enough to explain: page creation suggests that the page
does not yet exist. So you'll never get past the find a page step. ;-)
Hi everyone!
I think that there are two categories of developers now:
1) Wikimedia developers deal with Wikimedia tasks of running Wikipedia and
all other projects
2) Independent developers which use MediaWiki for their needs. I think that
not much of us even know that wikitech website exist. :)
Hi, about Wikitech / mediawiki.org check
http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Technical_communications/Dev_wiki_consolidation
On 04/03/2013 12:30 AM, Ori Livneh wrote:
That seems wrong. Of the two, MediaWiki.org is clearly the more
successful wiki.
Sure, but following this argument we could just
On 04/03/2013 09:48 AM, Yury Katkov wrote:
IMO stuff related to inner projects of Wikimedia foundation should be
located on wikitech. Manuals that are related to MediaWiki as a software
and its extensions should live on MediaWiki.org. No Wikimedia-specific
materials here.
This seems like a
About the virtues of MediaWiki software.
On 04/03/2013 12:30 AM, Ori Livneh wrote:
The core of MediaWiki is in my mind still radical and exciting: you
make or find a page, click edit, and just type into it.
I agree, and perhaps this is one of the reasons why we are still here
and not at
On Wed, Apr 3, 2013 at 10:33 AM, Marc A. Pelletier m...@uberbox.org wrote:
On 04/03/2013 09:48 AM, Yury Katkov wrote:
IMO stuff related to inner projects of Wikimedia foundation should be
located on wikitech. Manuals that are related to MediaWiki as a software
and its extensions should live on
On 04/03/2013 06:48 AM, Yury Katkov wrote:
Hi everyone!
I think that there are two categories of developers now:
1) Wikimedia developers deal with Wikimedia tasks of running Wikipedia and
all other projects
2) Independent developers which use MediaWiki for their needs. I think that
not much of
Le 03/04/13 15:48, Yury Katkov a écrit :
IMO stuff related to inner projects of Wikimedia foundation should be
located on wikitech. Manuals that are related to MediaWiki as a software
and its extensions should live on MediaWiki.org. No Wikimedia-specific
materials here.
I fully support that
Le 03/04/13 11:18, Ryan Lane a écrit :
One example of how semantics could improve mediawiki.org is the extension
matrix https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension_Matrix.
Can't we get Semantic extensions deployed on mediawiki.org ?
--
Antoine hashar Musso
On Apr 3, 2013, at 8:29 AM, Antoine Musso hashar+...@free.fr wrote:
Le 03/04/13 11:18, Ryan Lane a écrit :
One example of how semantics could improve mediawiki.org is the extension
matrix https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension_Matrix.
Can't we get Semantic extensions deployed on
It seems that it's what's planning now, isn't it? Turn on SMW, Semantic
Forms and maybe other semantic extensions and modify the existing templates
to use them.
On Wed, Apr 3, 2013 at 7:26 PM, Antoine Musso hashar+...@free.fr wrote:
Le 03/04/13 11:18, Ryan Lane a écrit :
One example of how
On Wed, Apr 3, 2013 at 7:41 PM, Ryan Lane rlan...@gmail.com wrote:
On Apr 3, 2013, at 8:29 AM, Antoine Musso hashar+...@free.fr wrote:
Le 03/04/13 11:18, Ryan Lane a écrit :
One example of how semantics could improve mediawiki.org is the
extension
matrix
On 04/03/2013 11:58 AM, Yury Katkov wrote:
Why? SMW is already here, it's documented beautifully, it has good
performance, active community and it is NOT developing by Wikimedia
Foundation, which is good political decision for the MediaWiki.org portal
which aimed to be closer to 3rd party
On Tue, Apr 02, 2013 at 05:45:58AM -0700, Quim Gil wrote:
* wikitech.wikimedia.org would become the one and only site for our
open source software contributors, powered by semantic software and
an ontology of categories shared across wiki pages, Bugzilla and
hopefully Gerrit.
This is
On Wednesday, April 3, 2013 at 2:18 AM, Ryan Lane wrote:
Spend some time editing a well designed Semantically enabled wiki. Web
Platform is a good example: http://docs.webplatform.org/wiki/Main_Page.
There's a high degree of structure there. That wiki is way above average
quality from the
On Wed, Apr 3, 2013 at 2:11 PM, Ori Livneh o...@wikimedia.org wrote:
On Wednesday, April 3, 2013 at 2:18 AM, Ryan Lane wrote:
Spend some time editing a well designed Semantically enabled wiki. Web
Platform is a good example: http://docs.webplatform.org/wiki/Main_Page
.
There's a high
On 04/03/2013 11:11 AM, Ori Livneh wrote:
required. What you are proposing is considerably more ambitious in
scope (Web Platform doesn't integrate with bug management and SCM),
but some napkin cost analysis could be very useful.
Yes, but I didn't want to go too far with implementation details
On 04/03/2013 03:30 AM, Ori Livneh wrote:
That seems wrong. Of the two, MediaWiki.org is clearly the more
successful wiki. It is larger by all measures, and draws a wide pool
of active contributors.
I don't know that it's appropriate to put WMF-only stuff on the
MediaWiki site. Of course, I'm
On 04/03/2013 09:15 AM, MZMcBride wrote:
Ryan Lane wrote:
mediawiki.org will still exist to document MediaWiki. The domain name
itself makes it fairly ill-fit to document our non-MediaWiki software
documentation.
I follow Wikimedia pretty closely and I have no idea what the distinction
On 04/03/2013 11:58 AM, Yury Katkov wrote:
Why? SMW is already here, it's documented beautifully, it has good
performance, active community and it is NOT developing by Wikimedia
Foundation, which is good political decision for the MediaWiki.org portal
which aimed to be closer to 3rd party
On 04/03/2013 11:26 AM, Antoine Musso wrote:
Le 03/04/13 15:48, Yury Katkov a écrit :
IMO stuff related to inner projects of Wikimedia foundation should be
located on wikitech. Manuals that are related to MediaWiki as a software
and its extensions should live on MediaWiki.org. No
On Wed, Apr 3, 2013 at 11:55 PM, Matthew Flaschen
mflasc...@wikimedia.orgwrote:
On 04/03/2013 11:58 AM, Yury Katkov wrote:
Why? SMW is already here, it's documented beautifully, it has good
performance, active community and it is NOT developing by Wikimedia
Foundation, which is good
I'm not sure I understand your point. If it's better for mediawiki.org
to have a non-WMF extension doing this, and neither SMW nor Wikidata are
developed by WMF, how is SMW a better choice than Wikidata?
Alex Monk
On 03/04/13 21:23, Yury Katkov wrote:
On Wed, Apr 3, 2013 at 11:55 PM,
On 03/04/13 19:37, Quim Gil wrote:
http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Requests_for_comment/Wikitech_contributors#First_iteration
is supposed to be completed in 3 months, and even there you have some
easier tasks that could be implemented pretty fast, namely forms
templates for
* User profiles.
On Wed, Apr 3, 2013 at 11:37 AM, Quim Gil q...@wikimedia.org wrote:
Agreed.
http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/**Requests_for_comment/Wikitech_**
contributors#First_iterationhttp://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Requests_for_comment/Wikitech_contributors#First_iterationis
supposed to be completed in 3
On 03/04/13 20:48, Matthew Flaschen wrote:
On 04/03/2013 03:30 AM, Ori Livneh wrote:
That seems wrong. Of the two, MediaWiki.org is clearly the more
successful wiki. It is larger by all measures, and draws a wide pool
of active contributors.
I don't know that it's appropriate to put WMF-only
On Wed, Apr 3, 2013 at 5:01 PM, Steven Walling steven.wall...@gmail.comwrote:
Quim, I think even this first iteration is problematic on a bunch of
fronts. 3 months as a first iteration to build several major features as
the basic proof of concept should be a sign that you're biting off too
On Wed, Apr 3, 2013 at 5:19 PM, Isarra Yos zhoris...@gmail.com wrote:
On 03/04/13 20:48, Matthew Flaschen wrote:
On 04/03/2013 03:30 AM, Ori Livneh wrote:
That seems wrong. Of the two, MediaWiki.org is clearly the more
successful wiki. It is larger by all measures, and draws a wide pool
of
On 03/04/13 14:48, Yury Katkov wrote:
Hi everyone!
I think that there are two categories of developers now:
1) Wikimedia developers deal with Wikimedia tasks of running Wikipedia and
all other projects
2) Independent developers which use MediaWiki for their needs. I think that
not much of us
On Wed, Apr 3, 2013 at 2:25 PM, Ryan Lane rlan...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Apr 3, 2013 at 5:01 PM, Steven Walling steven.wall...@gmail.com
wrote:
Quim, I think even this first iteration is problematic on a bunch of
fronts. 3 months as a first iteration to build several major features as
On 03/04/13 22:26, Ryan Lane wrote:
On Wed, Apr 3, 2013 at 5:19 PM, Isarra Yos zhoris...@gmail.com wrote:
On 03/04/13 20:48, Matthew Flaschen wrote:
On 04/03/2013 03:30 AM, Ori Livneh wrote:
That seems wrong. Of the two, MediaWiki.org is clearly the more
successful wiki. It is larger by
On Wed, Apr 3, 2013 at 5:31 PM, Steven Walling steven.wall...@gmail.comwrote:
Let me put it a simpler way: I don't support moving to Semantic MediaWiki,
which to me as user seems like a somewhat arcane and bloated piece of
software that will require me and lots of people to relearn how we
On Wed, Apr 3, 2013 at 2:59 PM, Ryan Lane rlan...@gmail.com wrote:
If you are a content organizer that modifies templates and likes
to make structures easier for for readers and editors, SMW actually makes
it much easier to do things that are otherwise impossible in MediaWiki
without
On Wed, Apr 3, 2013 at 6:06 PM, Steven Walling steven.wall...@gmail.comwrote:
On Wed, Apr 3, 2013 at 2:59 PM, Ryan Lane rlan...@gmail.com wrote:
If you are a content organizer that modifies templates and likes
to make structures easier for for readers and editors, SMW actually makes
it
On Wed, Apr 3, 2013 at 3:12 PM, Ryan Lane rlan...@gmail.com wrote:
The proposal is to move non-MediaWiki documentation our of
mediawiki.orginto a more generically named wiki. The proposal isn't
for migrating all of
mediawiki.org.
Thanks for the clarification. Sorry to confuse the discussion
It is not surprising that long term contributors with advanced wiki
editing skills and familiar with the key people and corners of our
community don't see a big need for change. Well, this is part of the
problem.
Yes, Gerrit and Bugzilla have issues. This proposal focuses on the
potential
Hey,
I don't support moving to Semantic MediaWiki,
... will require me and lots of people to relearn how we write
documentation and project tracking, unless you can show why the changes you
want to make are A) necessary B) require SMW to accomplish them.
That is incorrect. SMW does not force
On Wed, Apr 3, 2013 at 3:48 PM, Jeroen De Dauw jeroended...@gmail.comwrote:
That is incorrect. SMW does not force users to learn new things. I imagine
that the setup Quim has in mind does not involve workflows for basic
documentation tasks that require users going though them to have knowdlge
On Wednesday, April 3, 2013 at 3:40 PM, Quim Gil wrote:
As I see it, the current proposal is already taking shortcuts in order
to have fast iterations. 3 months doesn't mean you don't relese new
features in between.
Anything related with enabling Semantic Forms in specific types of
I have been drafting a proposal to attract new contributors, help them
settle in, and connect them to interesting tasks. It turns out that many
of these problems are not unique to new contributors. We suffer them as
well and we are just used to them.
The proposal has evolved into a deeper
67 matches
Mail list logo
