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 it.
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 through
2010/3/5 Chris Lewis yecheondigi...@yahoo.com:
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
On Fri, Mar 5, 2010 at 11:15 AM, Roan Kattouw roan.katt...@gmail.com wrote:
2010/3/5 Chris Lewis yecheondigi...@yahoo.com:
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
* Roan Kattouw roan.katt...@gmail.com [Fri, 5 Mar 2010 12:15:46
+0100]:
2010/3/5 Chris Lewis yecheondigi...@yahoo.com:
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
On Fri, Mar 5, 2010 at 6:48 AM, Dmitriy Sintsov ques...@rambler.ru wrote:
* Roan Kattouw roan.katt...@gmail.com [Fri, 5 Mar 2010 12:15:46
+0100]:
2010/3/5 Chris Lewis yecheondigi...@yahoo.com:
They were not back in 2005 =)
In case you haven't heard, it's 2010 lol. A lot has changed since
Aryeh Gregor Simetrical+wikilist at 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
On Thu, Mar 4, 2010 at 8:39 AM, Tisza Gergő gti...@gmail.com wrote:
Aryeh Gregor Simetrical+wikilist at 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
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
On Thu, Mar 4, 2010 at 9:42 PM, Chris Lewis yecheondigi...@yahoo.com 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
* Chris Lewis yecheondigi...@yahoo.com [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
Excellent data point. Thanks, David.
On Tue, Mar 2, 2010 at 11:42 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
On 3 March 2010 05:26, George Herbert george.herb...@gmail.com 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
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
On 3 March 2010 11:05, Domas Mituzas midom.li...@gmail.com 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
On 3 March 2010 08:45, George Herbert george.herb...@gmail.com 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
On 3 March 2010 10:19, Tei oscar.vi...@gmail.com 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
On Tue, Mar 2, 2010 at 11:30 PM, Chris Lewis yecheondigi...@yahoo.com 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
Chad innocentkiller at 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
Ryan Lane rlane32 at 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
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
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
On 3 March 2010 15:06, Paul Houle p...@ontology2.com 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 :-)
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 Tue, Mar 2, 2010 at 11:30 PM, Chris Lewis yecheondigi...@yahoo.com 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
On Wed, Mar 3, 2010 at 4:30 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
On 3 March 2010 15:06, Paul Houle p...@ontology2.com 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.
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 Wed, Mar 3, 2010 at 1:59 PM, Dmitriy Sintsov ques...@rambler.ru 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
* David Gerard dger...@gmail.com [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
* David Gerard dger...@gmail.com [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
Marco Schuster wrote:
On Wed, Mar 3, 2010 at 4:30 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
On 3 March 2010 15:06, Paul Houle p...@ontology2.com 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
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
source
code to
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
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 were
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
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
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 Windows
On Tue, Mar 2, 2010 at 8:30 PM, Chris Lewis yecheondigi...@yahoo.com 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
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 system,
On Tue, Mar 2, 2010 at 9:06 PM, Ryan Lane rlan...@gmail.com 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
On 2 March 2010 20:30, Chris Lewis yecheondigi...@yahoo.com 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
On Wed, Mar 3, 2010 at 5:57 AM, Ryan Lane rlan...@gmail.com 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
-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
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
On 3 March 2010 05:26, George Herbert george.herb...@gmail.com 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.
44 matches
Mail list logo
