On 09/18/2011 01:49 PM, Tim Starling wrote:
On 18/09/11 21:01, Bram Moolenaar wrote:
>> Some people use Vim to edit Wikipedia articles, and probably also to
>> edit other wikis that use also the MediaWiki backend software.
>> Would you please accept the MediaWiki syntax file into Vim?
>>
>> It's at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Text_editor_support#Vim in the
>> first gray box.
>>
>> I didn't write it. I would appreciate it very much if you'd please
paste a
>> second copy of your comments at the very bottom of
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Text_editor_support .
Just click
>> the "+" tab at the top of the page. No registration required.
>>
>> In case it matters, the MediaWiki syntax file is probably
dual-licensed. You
>> can probably use it under your choice of:
>>
>> * the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License, or
>> * the GNU Free Documentation License (unversioned, with no invariant
sections,
>> front-cover texts, or back-cover texts).
> The file says: Published on Wikipedia in 2003-04 and declared authorless.
>
> That means there is no copyright statement and thus this file can't be
> copied.
>
> Can the author please come forward, add a maintainer to the header, so
> that we can include this in the distribution? I don't add files unless
> there is a maintainer.
>
I wrote that "authorless" comment on the original version of that
file, which I uploaded to Wikipedia in June 2003. It was a riff on
Wikipedia's article ownership policy:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Ownership_of_articles
But by "published on Wikipedia", I meant to imply that it was released
under Wikipedia's normal license, which was GFDL at the time, and is
now CC-BY-SA. It's been edited substantially since then.
Reconstructing the full author list would be non-trivial since it's
part of a larger article on Wikipedia.
I would welcome the inclusion into the Vim runtime, as the "maintenance"
as part of the referenced long Wikipedia page is very cumbersome. I'm
the one who "rescued" the syntax script twice (in 2009 moving it to a
location that is publicly editable, then in 2010 copying the source code
into the main page, as other references had been phased out and
forbidden) -- out of thankfulness for what was there and to keep the
collaboration going.
Since then, the Vim part of the page has been edited only a couple of
times, so I think it would be possible to even do full attribution to
the contributors [since that rescue], but as most of these have been
minor (and of varying quality), a reference to the original source would
probably suffice.
I can't vouch for the quality of it. The quality of the original
version was certainly not good enough to warrant inclusion.
I have been using said syntax mainly for my contributions to the Vim
Tips Wiki, and have modified my private copy with some enhancements. I
have just finished "merging in" some of past months' changes to the
Wikipedia sources, and have found some outdated parts, some
inconsistencies, and some things that don't look as if they could
possibly work, and some stuff that I don't use and understand. For my
occasional use, it's definitely helpful, but a maintainer should
probably be more involved in Wikipedia / MediaWiki edits than me to be a
judge of the quality of contributions.
Is there any such Vim user with a focus on MediaWiki who volunteers?
Alternatively, one could try moving the (joint) maintenance to the Vim
Tips Wiki, where there's a more Vim-centric audience (and superb
moderators - thanks John and Ben!), and I have witnessed such
collaboration work well. Finally, I would be willing to upload my own
fork of the syntax script to vim.org, and with enough upvotes, this
could then be incorporated into Vim. But, as I said, I've used very
little of the MediaWiki syntax and only occasionally, so I'd be a very
passive and dumb maintainer.
-- regards, ingo
--
You received this message from the "vim_dev" maillist.
Do not top-post! Type your reply below the text you are replying to.
For more information, visit http://www.vim.org/maillist.php
