Dmitriy Sintsov wrote:
>
> When one looks for educational / academic content, rich and colorful
> interface only distracts the reader.
> The following site is not mediawiki / monobook based, yet the visual
> design is simple:
> http://plato.stanford.edu/contents.html
> There is nothing wrong with
On Fri, Mar 5, 2010 at 6:48 AM, Dmitriy Sintsov wrote:
> * Roan Kattouw [Fri, 5 Mar 2010 12:15:46
> +0100]:
>> 2010/3/5 Chris Lewis :
>> >>They were not back in 2005 =)
>> > In case you haven't heard, it's 2010 lol. A lot has changed since
>> then.
>> >
>> We have heard. It's just that no one has
* Roan Kattouw [Fri, 5 Mar 2010 12:15:46
+0100]:
> 2010/3/5 Chris Lewis :
> >>They were not back in 2005 =)
> > In case you haven't heard, it's 2010 lol. A lot has changed since
> then.
> >
> We have heard. It's just that no one has cared since 2005 apart from
> the aforementioned Stanton-funded
On Fri, Mar 5, 2010 at 11:15 AM, Roan Kattouw wrote:
> 2010/3/5 Chris Lewis :
>>>They were not back in 2005 =)
>> In case you haven't heard, it's 2010 lol. A lot has changed since then.
>>
> We have heard. It's just that no one has cared since 2005 apart from
> the aforementioned Stanton-funded us
2010/3/5 Chris Lewis :
> I agree 100%, especially the part I bolded. Also god bless the developers and
> extension writers for doing this out of their own free time, I guess I
> misunderstood the process and thought wikimedia had a code team that was paid.
>
Some developers are paid employees/con
Hi!
> A lot of the replies were helpful, in particular Ryan Lane and Yaron's
> replies. Also made a quick reply to Domas.
Replies are good!
> Overall it's awesome no doubt (otherwise I wouldn't have used it in the first
> place), but a few of the practices (i.e. editing localsettings file thro
On Thu, Mar 4, 2010 at 9:42 PM, Chris Lewis wrote:
>>> -Being able to manage extensions like wordpress does.
>
>>Feel free to develop it :)
> These types of replies are hilarious. It's like
> Iphone user: "Dear Apple, if your iphone had the following features it would
> be great (A) (B) (C) ... "
A lot of the replies were helpful, in particular Ryan Lane and Yaron's replies.
Also made a quick reply to Domas.
First to Ryan:
This is likely the right list.
>Are you aware of the Wikipedia usability initiative? Have you seen the
>new skin they are creating (Vector), or the awesome new fea
On Thu, Mar 4, 2010 at 8:39 AM, Tisza Gergő wrote:
> Aryeh Gregor gmail.com> writes:
>
>> 2) Some people really want to see the software succeed for
>> non-financial reasons, so they're willing to put in extra effort to
>> make it easier to use even if it doesn't directly benefit them.
> ...
>> (
Aryeh Gregor gmail.com> writes:
> 2) Some people really want to see the software succeed for
> non-financial reasons, so they're willing to put in extra effort to
> make it easier to use even if it doesn't directly benefit them.
...
> (2) hasn't happened because most
> of us care mainly about Wik
I'm in somewhat of a unique position to comment on this, since I both do
MediaWiki extension development, and run a MediaWiki consulting company
(shameless plug: wikiworks.com) - so I personally have a financial interest
in making MediaWiki more popular and more easy-to-use. I also tend to hear a
l
fl wrote:
> No, they can't. As far as I am aware, MediaWiki is released under the
> GNU General Public License[1], which stipulates, among other things, the
> requirement to release a program's source code to the public and to
> release any derived changes under the same license[2].
>
> If the WMF
I'd like to chime into the discussion and point out that there is a huge
community around extensions and features that are not used by Wikimedia
foundation - Semantic MediaWiki & co and OpenID to name a few.
These extensions are maintained by 3rd party developers and many of them,
including myself
On Wed, 3 Mar 2010 10:31 pm, Platonides wrote:
> fl wrote:
>> I would disagree. The Wikimedia software has been released under an
>> open
>> source license: While the WMF certainly has no obligation to improve
>> the
>> software, they most definately have an obligation to release the
>> sour
Marco Schuster wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 3, 2010 at 4:30 PM, David Gerard wrote:
>
>> On 3 March 2010 15:06, Paul Houle wrote:
>>
>>
>>>For a large-scale site, there's going to be a lot of administration
>>> work to be done, so it doesn't matter if the system is difficult to set
>>> up a
* David Gerard [Wed, 3 Mar 2010 20:02:29 +]:
> You can blog using a text editor and an FTP client too, but WordPress
> does lots of little things that save work for you :-)
>
Semantic MediaWiki also easily builds various lists depending on
properties of article, RSS feeds and so on.
On 3 March 2010 19:58, Dmitriy Sintsov wrote:
> What's the point of using WordPress, can't you blog in MediaWiki? I
> don't see much difference, except that MediaWiki code was better
> structured back then.
You can blog using a text editor and an FTP client too, but WordPress
does lots of littl
* David Gerard [Wed, 3 Mar 2010 19:24:15 +]:
> It's by far the least-worst blogging engine. It does REALLY REALLY
> HELP to know your way around a command line, even though you don't
> need it a *lot*.
>
Mostly a basic things will be enough, not really a bash guru.
> The WordPress 'Sploit Of
On Wed, Mar 3, 2010 at 1:59 PM, Dmitriy Sintsov wrote:
> WordPress wasn't the gemstone of code about 2 years ago I've checked it.
> MediaWiki was a clear winner, don't know about current WordPress code,
> though.
Please, let's not start attacking other projects here. There's no
call for such unc
Chiming in on this a little late, but, basically:
Yeah, mediawiki isn't that easy to administer. Unfortunately, people
administering MediaWiki installs are only one type of user that we have
to worry about and resources (as always) are limited. Right now, we're
focusing a concentrated effort on
On 3 March 2010 18:59, Dmitriy Sintsov wrote:
> WordPress wasn't the gemstone of code about 2 years ago I've checked it.
> MediaWiki was a clear winner, don't know about current WordPress code,
> though.
It's by far the least-worst blogging engine. It does REALLY REALLY
HELP to know your way ar
* Marco Schuster [Wed, 3 Mar 2010
19:22:35 +0100]:
> > Multi-user WordPress is a bit arsier. Comparable faff to MediaWiki
> setup.
> apt-get install wordpress, and let dpkg handle the rest. it's really
> easy.
>
WordPress wasn't the gemstone of code about 2 years ago I've checked it.
MediaWiki w
On Wed, Mar 3, 2010 at 4:30 PM, David Gerard wrote:
> On 3 March 2010 15:06, Paul Houle wrote:
>
>> For a large-scale site, there's going to be a lot of administration
>> work to be done, so it doesn't matter if the system is difficult to set
>> up and configure.
>
>
> As it turns out, Media
On Tue, Mar 2, 2010 at 11:30 PM, Chris Lewis wrote:
> If Wordpress is like Windows 7, then Mediawiki is Windows 2000. Very outdated
> GUI, outdated ways of doing things,for example using ftp to edit the settings
> of the wiki instead of having a direct interface like Wordpress. Mediawiki
> make
> pockets of the people who run it? I know Wordpress and Mediawiki serve two
> different purposes, but that's not the point. The point is, one is modern and
> user friendly (Wordpress), and the other (Mediawiki) is not. Other complaints:
>
There is a great difference in business models there
On 3 March 2010 15:06, Paul Houle wrote:
> For a large-scale site, there's going to be a lot of administration
> work to be done, so it doesn't matter if the system is difficult to set
> up and configure.
As it turns out, MediaWiki isn't really hard at all :-)
> Wordpress, on the oth
Chris Lewis wrote:
> I hope I am emailing this to the right group. My concern was about mediawiki
> and it's limitations, as well as it's outdated methods. As someone wo runs a
> wiki, I've gone through a lot of frustrations.
>
>
For one thing, I'd say that mediawiki aims for a particular
Chris Lewis wrote:
> I hope I am emailing this to the right group.
It is.
> My concern was about mediawiki and it's limitations, as well as it's outdated
> methods. As someone wo runs a wiki, I've gone through a lot of frustrations.
Maybe you should list your frustrations? It maybe a problem on
fl wrote:
> I would disagree. The Wikimedia software has been released under an open
> source license: While the WMF certainly has no obligation to improve the
> software, they most definately have an obligation to release the source
> code to third-parties.
>
> --
> fl
Wrong. They do it, and it's
Ryan Lane gmail.com> writes:
> I'd like to mention that from a security perspective, I like the fact
> that by default MediaWiki does not allow Wordpress style upgrades and
> code modifications. MediaWiki exploits may lead to vandalism, but
> Wordpress exploits generally lead to shell or root acc
Chad gmail.com> writes:
> > I have no idea if there's a nice Windows package friendly enough for
> > the low-to-medium-tier NT admins (those who watch progress bars for a
> > living), but that would be nice. They're not going to get away from
> > the command line and text configuration files, tho
On Tue, Mar 2, 2010 at 11:30 PM, Chris Lewis wrote:
> I hope I am emailing this to the right group. My concern was about mediawiki
> and it's limitations, as well as it's outdated methods. As someone wo runs a
> wiki, I've gone through a lot of frustrations.
>
> If Wordpress is like Windows 7, t
On Wed, Mar 3, 2010 at 6:35 AM, David Gerard wrote:
> On 3 March 2010 10:19, Tei wrote:
>
>> I feel It takes a enormeous effort to move a proyect managed by
>> programmers and sysadmins for programmers and sysadmins to be
>> palatable by mere desktop users. The good news is that sysadmins and
>>
On 3 March 2010 10:19, Tei wrote:
> I feel It takes a enormeous effort to move a proyect managed by
> programmers and sysadmins for programmers and sysadmins to be
> palatable by mere desktop users. The good news is that sysadmins and
> programmers are desktop users too, so will love a sexier in
On 3 March 2010 08:45, George Herbert wrote:
> Excellent data point. Thanks, David.
It's hard to get sensible estimations of the spread of proprietary
server software - it doesn't generate the same amount of publicity,
press, forums etc. that open source does. (This leads to "notability"
probl
Marco Schuster wrote:
> [...]
>>> -I don't want to go to my ftp to download my local settings file, add a few
>>> lines then reupload it. This is caveman-like behavior for the modern
>>> internet.
>> Get a host that supports SSH. Use VI, Emacs, nano, pico, etc.
> HAHAHA, sorry but this way of
On 3 March 2010 11:05, Domas Mituzas wrote:
...
>> , why can't the money be put into making a modern product instead of in
>> pockets of the people who run it? I know Wordpress and Mediawiki serve two
>> different purposes, but that's not the point. The point is, one is modern
>> and user frien
Hi!
> The Wikimedia Foundation makes millions more than Wordpress, but the
> Foundation is running a top 5 website.
wordpress.com is in top20 too :)
Domas
___
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/
Hi!
> I hope I am emailing this to the right group. My concern was about mediawiki
> and it's limitations, as well as it's outdated methods. As someone wo runs a
> wiki, I've gone through a lot of frustrations.
Very sad to hear that!
> Mediawiki makes millions more than Wordpress does too
Hah
Excellent data point. Thanks, David.
On Tue, Mar 2, 2010 at 11:42 PM, David Gerard wrote:
> On 3 March 2010 05:26, George Herbert wrote:
>
>> If you have better stats, I'm all ears. I am not in any way a
>> Confluence opponent, and a couple of people I respect a lot like it,
>> but I've never
* Chris Lewis [Tue, 2 Mar 2010 20:30:20 -0800
(PST)]:
> I hope I am emailing this to the right group. My concern was about
> mediawiki and it's limitations, as well as it's outdated methods. As
> someone wo runs a wiki, I've gone through a lot of frustrations.
>
> If Wordpress is like Windows 7,
On 3 March 2010 05:26, George Herbert wrote:
> If you have better stats, I'm all ears. I am not in any way a
> Confluence opponent, and a couple of people I respect a lot like it,
> but I've never found an actual user out there.
All of the BBC. It's their intranet wiki. Runs on four large Dell
On Wed, 3 Mar 2010 12:57 pm, Ryan Lane wrote:
[snip]
> MediaWiki is written primarily for use for Wikimedia foundation sites.
> They generously make the software usable for third party sites, but
> they have no obligation to do so.
[snip]
I would disagree. The Wikimedia software has been released
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 3/3/2010 12:36 AM, Marco Schuster wrote:
> With Wordpress upgrades it's even easier: two clicks and you're done
> (okay, except if you run multi-user WP setups). Same for extension
> updates. It even *notifies* you for updates, especially for
> se
On Wed, Mar 3, 2010 at 5:57 AM, Ryan Lane wrote:
> I don't really find updates to be terribly difficult. You mostly just
> check out (or download) the newest version, and run update.php. This
> is probably more difficult without shell access.
With Wordpress upgrades it's even easier: two clicks an
On 2 March 2010 20:30, Chris Lewis wrote:
> Mediawiki makes millions more than Wordpress does too, why can't the money be
> put into making a modern product instead of in pockets of the people who run
> it?
The Wikimedia Foundation makes millions more than Wordpress, but the
Foundation is runni
On Tue, Mar 2, 2010 at 9:06 PM, Ryan Lane wrote:
>> One could possibly design a new wiki system as a pass-through layer,
>> with MW as a back end and with functionality being migrated forwards
>> into the new system over time as people got used to it.
>>
>> I think there's an opportunity either fo
> One could possibly design a new wiki system as a pass-through layer,
> with MW as a back end and with functionality being migrated forwards
> into the new system over time as people got used to it.
>
> I think there's an opportunity either for a reconceptualized
> enterprise oriented MW like syst
On Tue, Mar 2, 2010 at 8:30 PM, Chris Lewis wrote:
> I hope I am emailing this to the right group. My concern was about mediawiki
> and it's limitations, as well as it's outdated methods. As someone wo runs a
> wiki, I've gone through a lot of frustrations.
>
> If Wordpress is like Windows 7, th
> I hope I am emailing this to the right group. My concern was about mediawiki
> and it's limitations, as well as it's outdated methods. As someone wo runs a
> wiki, I've gone through a lot of frustrations.
>
This is likely the right list.
> If Wordpress is like Windows 7, then Mediawiki is Win
I hope I am emailing this to the right group. My concern was about mediawiki
and it's limitations, as well as it's outdated methods. As someone wo runs a
wiki, I've gone through a lot of frustrations.
If Wordpress is like Windows 7, then Mediawiki is Windows 2000. Very outdated
GUI, outdated wa
51 matches
Mail list logo
