Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Nathan Zachary <nathanzachary@g.o>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] [Gentoo Phoenix] an official Gentoo wiki
Date: Sat, 03 Apr 2010 15:03:56
Message-Id: 4BB758C3.4040406@gentoo.org
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-dev] [Gentoo Phoenix] an official Gentoo wiki by Dror Levin
1 On 03/04/10 08:40, Dror Levin wrote:
2 > On Sat, Apr 3, 2010 at 16:19, Ben de Groot <yngwin@g.o> wrote:
3 >
4 >> 1 - requirements
5 >> ================
6 >>
7 >> In order to choose the best possible wiki implementation, we need to
8 >> know our requirements. So what features do you think are essential or
9 >> good to have? What syntax would we prefer to use?
10 >>
11 >> I myself am a big fan of reStructuredText, which is quite simple,
12 >> easy to pick up, highly readable, and has a good featureset. Plus, it
13 >> is also reusable in other contexts (it is for example widely used in
14 >> documentation of Python libraries). MediaWiki, MoinMoin and Trac have
15 >> support for rst.
16 >>
17 >> Some others:
18 >>
19 >> - active upstream (bug fixes, security updates)
20 >> - free open source software
21 >> - ACLs
22 >> - spam prevention measures
23 >> - attachments (to upload screenshots for example)
24 >> - feeds
25 >>
26 > There is currently a wiki for gentoo at gentoo-wiki.com, which is
27 > running MediaWiki, so it would be easiest to transfer the content if
28 > we were to run the same software. Now, this doesn't mean we should be
29 > limited by their actions, but it seems to me like the best choice for
30 > other reasons as well. Its syntax is probably the most well known,
31 > thanks to Wikipedia. Its upstream is active, it apparently scales and
32 > performs pretty well, it's GPL, supports translations/localization,
33 > feeds, attachments, etc.
34 > I'm sure many other alternatives are as qualified, so this is most
35 > likely a personal preference issue. As such, lets just agree on
36 > something that works and is widespread and go with that and avoid all
37 > the bikeshedding.
38 >
39 >
40 >> 2 - maintainers
41 >> ===============
42 >>
43 >> Who is volunteering for maintaining the wiki? We need editors and
44 >> moderators, people who look out for quality control and take care of
45 >> spam removal. So let's get together a team. I'm sure if we ask on the
46 >> forums we'll get some users interested as well.
47 >>
48 > I volunteer. Spam shouldn't be that much of an issue if editing is
49 > restricted to registered users, but it is a good idea to have a team
50 > of moderators similar to the one that exists for the forums (of course
51 > users can take part of it as well as developers).
52 >
53 >
54 >> 3 - edit access
55 >> ===============
56 >>
57 >> Do we keep to the original "free for all" model, with all the spam
58 >> that includes, or do we go with registered users only? I think the
59 >> latter is the smarter option. I also think we will want to mark
60 >> certain pages "official" and lock down editing rights.
61 >>
62 > IMO it's best if only registered users can edit (but registering
63 > should be easy, no bugs to file or anything, just sign up and use
64 > immediately). This will probably prevent most kinds of spam and allow
65 > for much better tracking of editing and history, allow for banning,
66 > etc. without closing the wiki up too much.
67 > Also, from what I could tell, this is how others are managing their
68 > wiki as well (Arch and Amarok, for example).
69 >
70 > Dror Levin
71 >
72 >
73 I would enjoy working on a wiki as well as the fora, so I'm volunteering
74 as well.
75
76 --Nathan Zachary