Please stay on topic. This thread is about the ORES FAQ. If you would
like to debate about Which Wiki Is The Right Wiki for SIGDOCS, please start
a new thread. I'm sure Sarah will be happy to discuss the initiative and
its history in that thread.
On Tue, Nov 21, 2017 at 7:49 PM, Gergo Tisza <gtisza(a)wikimedia.org> wrote:
On Tue, Nov 21, 2017 at 4:20 PM, Aaron Halfaker
I thought Wikitech makes sense for a
A documentation SIG is not really Wikimedia-specific though (or did you
mean "ORES documentation SIG" specifically?).
Also, most Wikimedia-specific technology initiatives are on mw.org
the Audiences projects, for example).
Wikitech was originally a place for ops documentation. (It has its own
infrastructure and deploy cadence, so it's unaffected by most failures;
also it's small enough for static HTML dumps. When the site is down and you
are scrambling to bring it back, it's a good thing when your operations
docs aren't also down.) Later Labs needed a management interface which got
tucked onto Wikitech (this was one of those "do everything inside
MediaWiki" eras), so it made sense to put all Labs-related documentation on
wikitech as well. Most other things are on mediawiki.org
. There were
various proposals over the years to change that (move wikitech content to
, move all WMF stuff to wikitech, move all WMF stuff to
meta, move all non-MediaWiki-documentation stuff to a new developer wiki
etc.) but none of them gained much momentum.
Due to being managed differently, wikitech is not a great work environment
IMO. There is no unified login, no page translation support, no structured
discussion support, no pageview metrics, the registration process is tied
to creating LDAP and shell accounts... There are plans to improve this
eventually , but between that and the audience differences, I'd stay
away for now.
Btw you are probably aware of the past discussion on a documentation SIG,
but just in case: 
AI mailing list