| 1 |
On 04/03/10 16:46, Ben de Groot wrote: |
| 2 |
>> I propose to use MediaWiki. |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
> As I said in my other post, MediaWiki and MoinMoin should, in my |
| 5 |
> opinion, be on our shortlist to consider. |
| 6 |
|
| 7 |
My vote on MediaWiki, too. |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
(I do like DokuWiki better for personal things but mediaWiki seems the |
| 10 |
best choice for a project this large.) |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
Btw was it Fedora having moved from MoinMoin to MediaWiki? |
| 13 |
I remember something like that, could be erring though. |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
>> Here's another idea: |
| 17 |
>> The German Wikipedia uses a concept called "sighted revisions". If you |
| 18 |
>> visit an article without logging in you will see the latest sighted |
| 19 |
>> revision, as an identified user you can also view the latest revision. |
| 20 |
> |
| 21 |
> That's an interesting idea, which we should consider. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
I'm not sure if that a thing to go for. Drawbacks: |
| 24 |
- More work (whereas we could use more manpower already) |
| 25 |
- New bottlenecks |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
Couldn't we just make two big "namespaces" |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
'devs' -- Developers only |
| 30 |
'registered' -- Full edit access to any registered user |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
in the same wiki and have pages be in either namespace, reflecting the |
| 33 |
namespace in the page name or path somehow? |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
I expect that to be |
| 36 |
- easy to implement |
| 37 |
- providing a good mix of openness and quality control |
| 38 |
|
| 39 |
|
| 40 |
> GuideXML documents are often experienced as an unnecessary |
| 41 |
> barrier. |
| 42 |
|
| 43 |
I think you should clearly state again that this is not gonna replace |
| 44 |
GuideXML, just migrate a few use cases where a wiki fits better. |
| 45 |
This is what you aim for, right? |
| 46 |
|
| 47 |
|
| 48 |
|
| 49 |
Sebastian |
Archives