I disabled all extensions and the FCKeditor worked. I reactivated the extensions step by step and found out that there is a conflict with the semantic mediawiki extension. How can I make sure that both are working properly? Is there a way that the FCKeditor and the semantic mediawiki can use different hooks?
I had a quick look on the sourcecode of the semantic mediawiki (current version). The semantic mediawiki and the FCKeditor extension use one parser hook in common which in itself is no problem.
However, there are more hook calls involved and here we are all in all in trouble as FCKeditor extension bypasses the parser and the semantic mediawiki uses parser hooks for modifying the output text.
Your initial problem was that you did not see any output text when using both extensions. Here I am still lost. Although the extensions cannot work correctly you should see at least something. Provided that this issue could be solved, it might be possible to adapt the FCKeditor extension in such a way that both extension can coexists - at least until the next software update. Hence, sooner or later you will be again in trouble.
Sorry, there is no easy solution to your problem Markus
Looks like we'll finally be ditching MediaWiki in our office next year. Apple has come to the party with a WYSIWYG wiki of its own: http://www.apple.com/server/macosx/leopard/wikiserver.html
We've been using MediaWiki for our office intranet over the years but it's never been adopted to a level that we think it could be, because of the requirement that users learn wiki markup.
It's always surprised me that WYSIWYG editing has not been a high priority for MediaWiki, considering the fact that MediaWiki and Wikipedia are founded on the idea of participation. The biggest obstacle, it has often seemed to me, is an installed base of Wikipedians who see wiki markup as a way of protecting their territory and minimising participation by others. MediaWiki has therefore been a bit of a love hate relationship in our office, and instead of being sad to see MediaWiki go we will be very happy indeed.
Thanks to those who have been working on WYSIWYG for MediaWiki, particularly in trying to integrate FCKEditor. I wish your efforts had borne fruit earlier and it's a pity you haven't had more support, but I'm sure you'll get there eventually.
Cheers, Christiaan
Christiaan,
I share your point of view, unfortunately: I have conducted a pilot test of Mediawiki before pushing it for our Intranet and I must say wiki markup is a major roadblock. Maybe Meta does not care for WSYIWYG that much but I believe they are missing a golden opportunity: supplying an Intranet building to enterprises. Someone is bound to capitalize on this opportunity.
Jld.
-----Original Message----- From: mediawiki-l-bounces@Wikimedia.org [mailto:mediawiki-l-bounces@Wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Christiaan Briggs Sent: August 8, 2006 08:04 To: MediaWiki announcements and site admin list Subject: [Mediawiki-l] Apple's Wiki Server brings WYSIWYG to wiki
Looks like we'll finally be ditching MediaWiki in our office next year. Apple has come to the party with a WYSIWYG wiki of its own: http://www.apple.com/server/macosx/leopard/wikiserver.html
We've been using MediaWiki for our office intranet over the years but it's never been adopted to a level that we think it could be, because of the requirement that users learn wiki markup.
It's always surprised me that WYSIWYG editing has not been a high priority for MediaWiki, considering the fact that MediaWiki and Wikipedia are founded on the idea of participation. The biggest obstacle, it has often seemed to me, is an installed base of Wikipedians who see wiki markup as a way of protecting their territory and minimising participation by others. MediaWiki has therefore been a bit of a love hate relationship in our office, and instead of being sad to see MediaWiki go we will be very happy indeed.
Thanks to those who have been working on WYSIWYG for MediaWiki, particularly in trying to integrate FCKEditor. I wish your efforts had borne fruit earlier and it's a pity you haven't had more support, but I'm sure you'll get there eventually.
Cheers, Christiaan _______________________________________________ MediaWiki-l mailing list MediaWiki-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/mediawiki-l
-- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.405 / Virus Database: 268.10.7/411 - Release Date: 07/08/2006
On 8/8/06, Christiaan Briggs christiaan@yurkycross.co.uk wrote:
Looks like we'll finally be ditching MediaWiki in our office next year. Apple has come to the party with a WYSIWYG wiki of its own:
Congratulations!
MediaWiki is not targeted at internal office use. While some people do use it successfully in this market, we offer no support, have no marketing, make no income from it, and don't make any effort whatsoever to be more than tolerable for it.
I'm glad you've found other software which is more appropriate for your requirements.
We really are not trying to sell MediaWiki to you or to anyone. It *really is* good for us if you need something different and you *use* something different because of that. That's better both for you and for us.
The biggest obstacle, it has often seemed to me, is an installed base of Wikipedians who see wiki markup as a way of protecting their territory and minimising participation by others.
That's absolutely false. Rather, the reason that all attempts have failed so far is that we have an installed base of millions of *pages* of *content* over *five years* with which compatibility *must* be *retained* for *Wikimedia*. Hacky HTML editors damage the text and destroy pages during editing, which is completely contrary to our requirement to preserve page text across tens of thousands of edits.
We simply have no interest in your intranet. It's not on our radar. We have no deal to provide you with intranet software. It's not what we do.
Thanks to those who have been working on WYSIWYG for MediaWiki, particularly in trying to integrate FCKEditor. I wish your efforts had borne fruit earlier and it's a pity you haven't had more support, but I'm sure you'll get there eventually.
I advise you not to waste time waiting on these integration efforts. The back-and-forth conversion they require is likely to never work properly.
-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
On 8 Aug 2006, at 2:35 PM, Brion Vibber wrote:
MediaWiki is not targeted at internal office use. While some people do use it successfully in this market, we offer no support, have no marketing, make no income from it, and don't make any effort whatsoever to be more than tolerable for it.
Actually I'm an active editor on Wikipedia and other online wikis using MediaWiki. My comments about WYSIWYG apply equally to such sites. That is to say I think it's a great obstacle to participation. It just happens that I'm in control of our office intranet, so to increase participation I shall be ditching MediaWiki and moving to a more modern wiki.
We really are not trying to sell MediaWiki to you or to anyone. It *really is* good for us if you need something different and you *use* something different because of that. That's better both for you and for us.
Sorry I disagree. I don't think MediaWiki is "really is good for us". I despise working with wiki markup and I know many very capable people who could be great contributors to Wikipedia but they're not because of wiki markup.
The biggest obstacle, it has often seemed to me, is an installed base of Wikipedians who see wiki markup as a way of protecting their territory and minimising participation by others.
That's absolutely false. Rather, the reason that all attempts have failed so far is that we have an installed base of millions of *pages* of *content* over *five years* with which compatibility *must* be *retained* for *Wikimedia*. Hacky HTML editors damage the text and destroy pages during editing, which is completely contrary to our requirement to preserve page text across tens of thousands of edits.
I know what the arguments are, I've heard them all and participated in many of the discussions. From my experience, however, the *real* obstacle is an installed base of technocrats who sees WYSIWYG as a threat to their positions, therefore all efforts to move in that direction are slow. Mostly they don't say such things outright, although some do. For instance I've had people argue that wiki markup is some kind of "intelligence" hurdle that people should have to overcome before being allowed to contribute.
I advise you not to waste time waiting on these integration efforts. The back-and-forth conversion they require is likely to never work properly.
Over the years I've learnt to dismiss comments that include the qualifier "never". They're invariably way off the mark.
There's also nothing stopping Wikipedia, etc. from moving to a different platform altogether of course.
Cheers, Christiaan
On 8/8/06, Christiaan Briggs christiaan@yurkycross.co.uk wrote:
I know what the arguments are, I've heard them all and participated in many of the discussions. From my experience, however, the *real* obstacle is an installed base of technocrats who sees WYSIWYG as a threat to their positions
This is really not true at all. Both Wikia and SocialText are working hard to get WYSIWYG right in MediaWiki. It's a big, big challenge if you try to preserve wiki mark-up and functionality (templates, magic words etc.) at the same time. We'd all love to see it, but we can neither make existing Wikimedia content stop working nor exclude users with disabilities or low-end software/hardware from editing our projects in the process.
Erik
On 9 Aug 2006, at 4:09 AM, Erik Moeller wrote:
On 8/8/06, Christiaan Briggs christiaan@yurkycross.co.uk wrote:
I know what the arguments are, I've heard them all and participated in many of the discussions. From my experience, however, the *real* obstacle is an installed base of technocrats who sees WYSIWYG as a threat to their positions
This is really not true at all. Both Wikia and SocialText are working hard to get WYSIWYG right in MediaWiki. It's a big, big challenge if you try to preserve wiki mark-up and functionality (templates, magic words etc.) at the same time. We'd all love to see it, but we can neither make existing Wikimedia content stop working nor exclude users with disabilities or low-end software/ hardware from editing our projects in the process.
"We'd all love to see it" Are you sure about that Erik?
Christiaan
To be honest, I don't even see how a message about Apple's new WYSIWYG wiki even came to be posted to this mailing list - *The MediaWiki announcements and site admin list*. Great, you're looking forward to ditching MediaWiki. The thing is, *we really don't care*. Go away, what do you expect, people begging you to use MediaWiki? It's free software, no-one here is making anything out of it! Now I'm wasting my time reading all this. Yes, you could say "why not bother then, we're not making you" but I felt I had to add this.
Thank you.
-- gary kirk
On 8/9/06, Christiaan Briggs christiaan@yurkycross.co.uk wrote:
On 9 Aug 2006, at 4:09 AM, Erik Moeller wrote:
On 8/8/06, Christiaan Briggs christiaan@yurkycross.co.uk wrote:
I know what the arguments are, I've heard them all and participated in many of the discussions. From my experience, however, the *real* obstacle is an installed base of technocrats who sees WYSIWYG as a threat to their positions
This is really not true at all. Both Wikia and SocialText are working hard to get WYSIWYG right in MediaWiki. It's a big, big challenge if you try to preserve wiki mark-up and functionality (templates, magic words etc.) at the same time. We'd all love to see it, but we can neither make existing Wikimedia content stop working nor exclude users with disabilities or low-end software/ hardware from editing our projects in the process.
"We'd all love to see it" Are you sure about that Erik?
Christiaan _______________________________________________ MediaWiki-l mailing list MediaWiki-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/mediawiki-l
On 9 Aug 2006, at 12:11 PM, Gary Kirk wrote:
To be honest, I don't even see how a message about Apple's new WYSIWYG wiki even came to be posted to this mailing list - *The MediaWiki announcements and site admin list*.
Yeah you're right, I just saw "This list is aimed at people who are running wikis with the MediaWiki software" but I think I'd be better off writing to wikitech-l@wikimedia.org.
Christiaan
On 8/9/06, Christiaan Briggs christiaan@yurkycross.co.uk wrote:
This is really not true at all. Both Wikia and SocialText are working hard to get WYSIWYG right in MediaWiki. It's a big, big challenge if you try to preserve wiki mark-up and functionality (templates, magic words etc.) at the same time. We'd all love to see it, but we can neither make existing Wikimedia content stop working nor exclude users with disabilities or low-end software/ hardware from editing our projects in the process.
"We'd all love to see it" Are you sure about that Erik?
I'm sure that if you keep debating the issue, some people who dislike WYSIWYG will tell you so. But that is not the reason we don't have WYSIWYG in MediaWiki.
Erik
On 9 Aug 2006, at 4:01 PM, Erik Moeller wrote:
"We'd all love to see it" Are you sure about that Erik?
I'm sure that if you keep debating the issue, some people who dislike WYSIWYG will tell you so. But that is not the reason we don't have WYSIWYG in MediaWiki.
No but I'm suggesting it might be an obstacle to having development of it prioritised.
I did post this thread to the wrong email list and I apologise for that, although many people here seem keen to discuss the matter. I'm getting a more appropriate response on the other list.
By the way, I'm not necessarily talking about "WYSIWYG in MediaWiki" either. It's more about WYSIWYG for Wikimedia projects. If integrating an editor into the current environment is so difficult maybe there needs to be a new approach, such as developing new software/syntax with some type of WYSIWYG editor built in from the start.
Christiaan
On 8/9/06, Christiaan Briggs christiaan@yurkycross.co.uk wrote:
No but I'm suggesting it might be an obstacle to having development of it prioritised.
It is very much prioritized by both Wikia and SocialText, and Jimmy mentioned this in his Wikimania keynote. You won't get much more priority than two multi-million-dollar companies throwing their weight behind it, and a Foundation-level endorsement of the effort.
By the way, I'm not necessarily talking about "WYSIWYG in MediaWiki" either. It's more about WYSIWYG for Wikimedia projects.
One depends on a stable and non-disruptive implementation of the other.
If integrating an editor into the current environment is so difficult maybe there needs to be a new approach, such as developing new software/syntax with some type of WYSIWYG editor built in from the start.
I don't think it would help all that much -- a declarative explanation of what the parser has to do in particular corner cases might be sufficient to ease some of the pain. However, some of MediaWiki's features, such as parametrized templates, are simply complex no matter what syntax you use to describe them; your WYSIWYG editor will have to support them somehow.
Erik
On 9 Aug 2006, at 4:49 PM, Erik Moeller wrote:
It is very much prioritized by both Wikia and SocialText, and Jimmy mentioned this in his Wikimania keynote. You won't get much more priority than two multi-million-dollar companies throwing their weight behind it, and a Foundation-level endorsement of the effort.
Sounds good. Last time I looked SocialText was a hosted service and I couldn't download their wiki software though. Has this changed? Does WIkia develop there own wiki too?
Christiaan
On 8/9/06, Christiaan Briggs christiaan@yurkycross.co.uk wrote:
Sounds good. Last time I looked SocialText was a hosted service and I couldn't download their wiki software though. Has this changed? Does WIkia develop there own wiki too?
SocialText has created WikiWyg: http://wikiwyg.net/
Wikia is working on integrating it with MediaWiki.
Erik
On 9 Aug 2006, at 5:02 PM, Erik Moeller wrote:
SocialText has created WikiWyg: http://wikiwyg.net/
Wikia is working on integrating it with MediaWiki.
Well, there ya go. Sounds great!
Christiaan
Intuit uses MediaWiki in the majority of its internal wikis - over 100. We have one MediaWiki running with fck. Some groups are migrating to Jotspot since it provides wysiwyg.
The lack of wysiwyg is indeed a hurdle for contributors. Even at a "techie" company like Intuit, half the potential contributors see wikitext as a hurdle.
This number likely reflects the rest of the world - it wouldn't surprise me if many potential Wikipedia contributors are also stymied by wikitext. Do you have the number of Edit clicks that didn't then result in a Save? That might be a decent indicator of first-time contribution attempts that failed for some reason - possibly intimidated by wikitext.
The one wiki we have with fck was an add-on to an existing wiki and encountered the compatibility issues Brion mentioned. However, just as the community cleans up wikitext pages, the community cleaned up the conversion issues - just as they would in Wikipedia.
You get the closest conversion that you can and then people will clean up what remains.
- MHart
The lack of wysiwyg is indeed a hurdle for contributors. Even at a "techie" company like Intuit, half the potential contributors see wikitext as a hurdle.
This is a "wall" we are currently facing with our nascent Wiki. There is some urging for FCK editor, but I some don't find wiki markup difficult or particularly onerous - but I suppose I'm in the minority - at least here. What are others experiences - is it worth the price of admission to add the functionality or do I just tell'em that's the way it is?
r
in the minority - at least here. What are others experiences - is it worth the price of admission to add the functionality or do I just tell'em that's the way it is?
In the experience I mentioned, the wiki didn't have a lot of content before switching to FCK - about 11 pages IIRC.
If you have an active community, they will likely clean it up. The pages are still readable in FCK, but the formatting is messed up. I did not write a conversion utility, however. For a wiki of, say, 25 or more pages, a conversion/clean up would probably be indicated. I've wrote a conversion from HTML help to wikitext that worked very well, converting thousands of pages into wikitext with very little cleanup needed, so it's definitely possible.
- MHart
I'm sorry, but I just don't understand how it is hard to use...sure, tables might be a little difficult, and having images how you want them too, but for simple editing it really isn't, especially with the edit bar.
-- gary kirk
On 8/8/06, MHart wiki@matthart.com wrote:
Intuit uses MediaWiki in the majority of its internal wikis - over 100. We have one MediaWiki running with fck. Some groups are migrating to Jotspot since it provides wysiwyg.
The lack of wysiwyg is indeed a hurdle for contributors. Even at a "techie" company like Intuit, half the potential contributors see wikitext as a hurdle.
This number likely reflects the rest of the world - it wouldn't surprise me if many potential Wikipedia contributors are also stymied by wikitext. Do you have the number of Edit clicks that didn't then result in a Save? That might be a decent indicator of first-time contribution attempts that failed for some reason - possibly intimidated by wikitext.
The one wiki we have with fck was an add-on to an existing wiki and encountered the compatibility issues Brion mentioned. However, just as the community cleans up wikitext pages, the community cleaned up the conversion issues - just as they would in Wikipedia.
You get the closest conversion that you can and then people will clean up what remains.
- MHart
MediaWiki-l mailing list MediaWiki-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/mediawiki-l
Gary Kirk wrote:
I'm sorry, but I just don't understand how it is hard to use...sure, tables might be a little difficult, and having images how you want them too, but for simple editing it really isn't, especially with the edit bar.
This was essentially my argument also, but apparently it's too hard? And no it was not any more quantifiable than that. Even tables are not that hard, sorry they're not - really. Absolute positioning of images, well this is a problem, but then again we're not designing for absolute pixel placement? Are We?
just my thoughts on the subject.
r
You can believe what you want, but in a corporate environment there is (and always will be) inertia. Not everybody wants to learn new things, many unless they are pressured to. Jld.
-----Original Message----- From: mediawiki-l-bounces@Wikimedia.org [mailto:mediawiki-l-bounces@Wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Ron Hall Sent: August 8, 2006 11:56 To: MediaWiki announcements and site admin list Subject: Re: [Mediawiki-l] Apple's Wiki Server brings WYSIWYG to wiki
Gary Kirk wrote:
I'm sorry, but I just don't understand how it is hard to use...sure, tables might be a little difficult, and having images how you want them too, but for simple editing it really isn't, especially with the edit bar.
This was essentially my argument also, but apparently it's too hard? And no it was not any more quantifiable than that. Even tables are not that hard, sorry they're not - really. Absolute positioning of images, well this is a problem, but then again we're not designing for absolute pixel placement? Are We?
just my thoughts on the subject.
r
_______________________________________________ MediaWiki-l mailing list MediaWiki-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/mediawiki-l
-- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.405 / Virus Database: 268.10.7/411 - Release Date: 07/08/2006
Jean-Lou Dupont wrote:
You can believe what you want, but in a corporate environment there is (and always will be) inertia. Not everybody wants to learn new things, many unless they are pressured to.
I hardly believe that a University setting is corporate, but the world is changing so mayhap that is a viable comparison. On the other hand it is a university environment in which everything changes, so learning new things is par for the course. You are correct inertia lives in many forms outside of the usual physical sense and it is perfectly Newtonian. More's the pity, but c'est la guerre.
r
Change is the constant of a living universe; corporations are subjected to the same laws as universities. Some corporate cultures are fitter than others to adapt to change. It gets down to the timescale in which adaptation is required to take place for effecting survival...
Going back to wiki'ng now. Jld.
-----Original Message----- From: mediawiki-l-bounces@Wikimedia.org [mailto:mediawiki-l-bounces@Wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Ron Hall Sent: August 8, 2006 13:51 To: MediaWiki announcements and site admin list Subject: Re: [Mediawiki-l] Apple's Wiki Server brings WYSIWYG to wiki (veering to the very off-topic)
Jean-Lou Dupont wrote:
You can believe what you want, but in a corporate environment there is (and always will be) inertia. Not everybody wants to learn new things, many unless they are pressured to.
I hardly believe that a University setting is corporate, but the world is changing so mayhap that is a viable comparison. On the other hand it is a university environment in which everything changes, so learning new things is par for the course. You are correct inertia lives in many forms outside of the usual physical sense and it is perfectly Newtonian. More's the pity, but c'est la guerre.
r
_______________________________________________ MediaWiki-l mailing list MediaWiki-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/mediawiki-l
-- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.405 / Virus Database: 268.10.7/411 - Release Date: 07/08/2006
Jean-Lou Dupont wrote:
Change is the constant of a living universe; corporations are subjected to the same laws as universities. Some corporate cultures are fitter than others to adapt to change. It gets down to the timescale in which adaptation is required to take place for effecting survival...
hah hah hah - this is funny. true but funny.
Going back to wiki'ng now.
And I'm installing FCKeditor in a test instance of the wiki :) Life is a laugh a minute in this corner of Paradise :)
r
I can see both sides of the wiki markup issue.
I think it is very easy for anybody to change an existing page by adding something to a list, changing some wording around or other minor edits.
To start a new page from scratch it can be intimidating.
The one thing I like about wiki markup is that it is readable unlike html. I am not sure how other wiki software does with WYSIWYG but I cannot stand any WYSIWYG html editor or WYSIWYG content management system.
-----Original Message----- From: mediawiki-l-bounces@Wikimedia.org [mailto:mediawiki-l-bounces@Wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Gary Kirk Sent: Tuesday, August 08, 2006 11:46 AM To: MediaWiki announcements and site admin list Subject: Re: [Mediawiki-l] Apple's Wiki Server brings WYSIWYG to wiki
I'm sorry, but I just don't understand how it is hard to use...sure, tables might be a little difficult, and having images how you want them too, but for simple editing it really isn't, especially with the edit bar.
-- gary kirk
On 8/8/06, MHart wiki@matthart.com wrote:
Intuit uses MediaWiki in the majority of its internal wikis - over
100. We
have one MediaWiki running with fck. Some groups are migrating to
Jotspot
since it provides wysiwyg.
The lack of wysiwyg is indeed a hurdle for contributors. Even at a "techie" company like Intuit, half the potential contributors see wikitext as a hurdle.
This number likely reflects the rest of the world - it wouldn't
surprise
me if many potential Wikipedia contributors are also stymied by wikitext.
Do
you have the number of Edit clicks that didn't then result in a Save?
That
might be a decent indicator of first-time contribution attempts that failed for some reason - possibly intimidated by wikitext.
The one wiki we have with fck was an add-on to an existing wiki and encountered the compatibility issues Brion mentioned. However, just as
the
community cleans up wikitext pages, the community cleaned up the conversion issues - just as they would in Wikipedia.
You get the closest conversion that you can and then people will clean
up
what remains.
- MHart
MediaWiki-l mailing list MediaWiki-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/mediawiki-l
What I meant was this kind of thing: [[Image:Name.png|left|250px|Description]] in the right order etc - I can never remember so I have it on a tools page in my userspace on en:wp.
-- gary kirk
On 8/8/06, Frederich, Eric P2173 eric.frederich@siemens.com wrote:
I can see both sides of the wiki markup issue.
I think it is very easy for anybody to change an existing page by adding something to a list, changing some wording around or other minor edits.
To start a new page from scratch it can be intimidating.
The one thing I like about wiki markup is that it is readable unlike html. I am not sure how other wiki software does with WYSIWYG but I cannot stand any WYSIWYG html editor or WYSIWYG content management system.
-----Original Message----- From: mediawiki-l-bounces@Wikimedia.org [mailto:mediawiki-l-bounces@Wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Gary Kirk Sent: Tuesday, August 08, 2006 11:46 AM To: MediaWiki announcements and site admin list Subject: Re: [Mediawiki-l] Apple's Wiki Server brings WYSIWYG to wiki
I'm sorry, but I just don't understand how it is hard to use...sure, tables might be a little difficult, and having images how you want them too, but for simple editing it really isn't, especially with the edit bar.
-- gary kirk
On 8/8/06, MHart wiki@matthart.com wrote:
Intuit uses MediaWiki in the majority of its internal wikis - over
- We
have one MediaWiki running with fck. Some groups are migrating to
Jotspot
since it provides wysiwyg.
The lack of wysiwyg is indeed a hurdle for contributors. Even at a "techie" company like Intuit, half the potential contributors see wikitext as a hurdle.
This number likely reflects the rest of the world - it wouldn't
surprise
me if many potential Wikipedia contributors are also stymied by wikitext.
Do
you have the number of Edit clicks that didn't then result in a Save?
That
might be a decent indicator of first-time contribution attempts that failed for some reason - possibly intimidated by wikitext.
The one wiki we have with fck was an add-on to an existing wiki and encountered the compatibility issues Brion mentioned. However, just as
the
community cleans up wikitext pages, the community cleaned up the conversion issues - just as they would in Wikipedia.
You get the closest conversion that you can and then people will clean
up
what remains.
- MHart
MediaWiki-l mailing list MediaWiki-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/mediawiki-l
-- Gary Kirk _______________________________________________ MediaWiki-l mailing list MediaWiki-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/mediawiki-l _______________________________________________ MediaWiki-l mailing list MediaWiki-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/mediawiki-l
Yes, I found myself looking at the code for an existing page if it has been a while since putting an image in the system too but I have only been using wiki for about a month now.
I believe that 95% of new users who know nothing about wiki would be able to take an existing image and change the caption under it if it existed or other minor edits. So forget about modifying some paragraph that already exists, we want people to add content. I still believe that those same 95% of non-wiki people would be able to add valuable content to the page (save new tables and new images). Most of the remaining 5% of people who couldn't contribute anything using wiki markup would probably have a hard time adding anything using a WYSIWYG editor anyway. I think the only thing you will gain from a WYSIWYG editor is the ability for a 'virgin' to the system to be able to add a new image or table.
What I am hoping to happen in our corporate environment is to have people designated as Wiki Authors who can take a word document or an e-mail from somebody and wikify it. As someone said in another post to this list, it is a collaborative effort. Just add your content and somebody will make it pretty or put it in a table for you.
~Eric
-----Original Message----- From: mediawiki-l-bounces@Wikimedia.org [mailto:mediawiki-l-bounces@Wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Gary Kirk Sent: Tuesday, August 08, 2006 12:16 PM To: MediaWiki announcements and site admin list Subject: Re: [Mediawiki-l] Apple's Wiki Server brings WYSIWYG to wiki
What I meant was this kind of thing: [[Image:Name.png|left|250px|Description]] in the right order etc - I can never remember so I have it on a tools page in my userspace on en:wp.
-- gary kirk
On 8/8/06, Frederich, Eric P2173 eric.frederich@siemens.com wrote:
I can see both sides of the wiki markup issue.
I think it is very easy for anybody to change an existing page by
adding
something to a list, changing some wording around or other minor
edits.
To start a new page from scratch it can be intimidating.
The one thing I like about wiki markup is that it is readable unlike html. I am not sure how other wiki software does with WYSIWYG but I cannot stand any WYSIWYG html editor or WYSIWYG content management system.
-----Original Message----- From: mediawiki-l-bounces@Wikimedia.org [mailto:mediawiki-l-bounces@Wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Gary Kirk Sent: Tuesday, August 08, 2006 11:46 AM To: MediaWiki announcements and site admin list Subject: Re: [Mediawiki-l] Apple's Wiki Server brings WYSIWYG to wiki
I'm sorry, but I just don't understand how it is hard to use...sure, tables might be a little difficult, and having images how you want them too, but for simple editing it really isn't, especially with the edit bar.
-- gary kirk
On 8/8/06, MHart wiki@matthart.com wrote:
Intuit uses MediaWiki in the majority of its internal wikis - over
- We
have one MediaWiki running with fck. Some groups are migrating to
Jotspot
since it provides wysiwyg.
The lack of wysiwyg is indeed a hurdle for contributors. Even at a "techie" company like Intuit, half the potential contributors see wikitext as
a
hurdle.
This number likely reflects the rest of the world - it wouldn't
surprise
me if many potential Wikipedia contributors are also stymied by
wikitext.
Do
you have the number of Edit clicks that didn't then result in a
Save?
That
might be a decent indicator of first-time contribution attempts that failed for some reason - possibly intimidated by wikitext.
The one wiki we have with fck was an add-on to an existing wiki and encountered the compatibility issues Brion mentioned. However, just
as
the
community cleans up wikitext pages, the community cleaned up the conversion issues - just as they would in Wikipedia.
You get the closest conversion that you can and then people will
clean
up
what remains.
- MHart
MediaWiki-l mailing list MediaWiki-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/mediawiki-l
-- Gary Kirk _______________________________________________ MediaWiki-l mailing list MediaWiki-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/mediawiki-l _______________________________________________ MediaWiki-l mailing list MediaWiki-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/mediawiki-l
At the end of the day, we're only talking about a handful of wikitext markup - '''bolding''', ''italicising'', [[Links]] and [[Ugly link|piped links]]. I believe MediaWiki 1.7 "ships" with some of the Help; namespace content from mediawiki.org,; correct me if I'm wrong.
-- gary kirk
On 8/8/06, Frederich, Eric P2173 eric.frederich@siemens.com wrote:
Yes, I found myself looking at the code for an existing page if it has been a while since putting an image in the system too but I have only been using wiki for about a month now.
I believe that 95% of new users who know nothing about wiki would be able to take an existing image and change the caption under it if it existed or other minor edits. So forget about modifying some paragraph that already exists, we want people to add content. I still believe that those same 95% of non-wiki people would be able to add valuable content to the page (save new tables and new images). Most of the remaining 5% of people who couldn't contribute anything using wiki markup would probably have a hard time adding anything using a WYSIWYG editor anyway. I think the only thing you will gain from a WYSIWYG editor is the ability for a 'virgin' to the system to be able to add a new image or table.
What I am hoping to happen in our corporate environment is to have people designated as Wiki Authors who can take a word document or an e-mail from somebody and wikify it. As someone said in another post to this list, it is a collaborative effort. Just add your content and somebody will make it pretty or put it in a table for you.
~Eric
-----Original Message----- From: mediawiki-l-bounces@Wikimedia.org [mailto:mediawiki-l-bounces@Wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Gary Kirk Sent: Tuesday, August 08, 2006 12:16 PM To: MediaWiki announcements and site admin list Subject: Re: [Mediawiki-l] Apple's Wiki Server brings WYSIWYG to wiki
What I meant was this kind of thing: [[Image:Name.png|left|250px|Description]] in the right order etc - I can never remember so I have it on a tools page in my userspace on en:wp.
-- gary kirk
On 8/8/06, Frederich, Eric P2173 eric.frederich@siemens.com wrote:
I can see both sides of the wiki markup issue.
I think it is very easy for anybody to change an existing page by
adding
something to a list, changing some wording around or other minor
edits.
To start a new page from scratch it can be intimidating.
The one thing I like about wiki markup is that it is readable unlike html. I am not sure how other wiki software does with WYSIWYG but I cannot stand any WYSIWYG html editor or WYSIWYG content management system.
-----Original Message----- From: mediawiki-l-bounces@Wikimedia.org [mailto:mediawiki-l-bounces@Wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Gary Kirk Sent: Tuesday, August 08, 2006 11:46 AM To: MediaWiki announcements and site admin list Subject: Re: [Mediawiki-l] Apple's Wiki Server brings WYSIWYG to wiki
I'm sorry, but I just don't understand how it is hard to use...sure, tables might be a little difficult, and having images how you want them too, but for simple editing it really isn't, especially with the edit bar.
-- gary kirk
On 8/8/06, MHart wiki@matthart.com wrote:
Intuit uses MediaWiki in the majority of its internal wikis - over
- We
have one MediaWiki running with fck. Some groups are migrating to
Jotspot
since it provides wysiwyg.
The lack of wysiwyg is indeed a hurdle for contributors. Even at a "techie" company like Intuit, half the potential contributors see wikitext as
a
hurdle.
This number likely reflects the rest of the world - it wouldn't
surprise
me if many potential Wikipedia contributors are also stymied by
wikitext.
Do
you have the number of Edit clicks that didn't then result in a
Save?
That
might be a decent indicator of first-time contribution attempts that failed for some reason - possibly intimidated by wikitext.
The one wiki we have with fck was an add-on to an existing wiki and encountered the compatibility issues Brion mentioned. However, just
as
the
community cleans up wikitext pages, the community cleaned up the conversion issues - just as they would in Wikipedia.
You get the closest conversion that you can and then people will
clean
up
what remains.
- MHart
MediaWiki-l mailing list MediaWiki-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/mediawiki-l
-- Gary Kirk _______________________________________________ MediaWiki-l mailing list MediaWiki-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/mediawiki-l _______________________________________________ MediaWiki-l mailing list MediaWiki-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/mediawiki-l
-- Gary Kirk _______________________________________________ MediaWiki-l mailing list MediaWiki-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/mediawiki-l _______________________________________________ MediaWiki-l mailing list MediaWiki-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/mediawiki-l
I am not so sure about your numbers (95% - 5% split) -- the way I see things, corporations have Powerpoint, Word & Excel-DNA that isn't easily mutated/substituted. But then again, I have been many times wrong before.
Jld.
-----Original Message----- From: mediawiki-l-bounces@Wikimedia.org [mailto:mediawiki-l-bounces@Wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Frederich, Eric P2173 Sent: August 8, 2006 14:14 To: MediaWiki announcements and site admin list Subject: Re: [Mediawiki-l] Apple's Wiki Server brings WYSIWYG to wiki
Yes, I found myself looking at the code for an existing page if it has been a while since putting an image in the system too but I have only been using wiki for about a month now.
I believe that 95% of new users who know nothing about wiki would be able to take an existing image and change the caption under it if it existed or other minor edits. So forget about modifying some paragraph that already exists, we want people to add content. I still believe that those same 95% of non-wiki people would be able to add valuable content to the page (save new tables and new images). Most of the remaining 5% of people who couldn't contribute anything using wiki markup would probably have a hard time adding anything using a WYSIWYG editor anyway. I think the only thing you will gain from a WYSIWYG editor is the ability for a 'virgin' to the system to be able to add a new image or table.
What I am hoping to happen in our corporate environment is to have people designated as Wiki Authors who can take a word document or an e-mail from somebody and wikify it. As someone said in another post to this list, it is a collaborative effort. Just add your content and somebody will make it pretty or put it in a table for you.
~Eric
-----Original Message----- From: mediawiki-l-bounces@Wikimedia.org [mailto:mediawiki-l-bounces@Wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Gary Kirk Sent: Tuesday, August 08, 2006 12:16 PM To: MediaWiki announcements and site admin list Subject: Re: [Mediawiki-l] Apple's Wiki Server brings WYSIWYG to wiki
What I meant was this kind of thing: [[Image:Name.png|left|250px|Description]] in the right order etc - I can never remember so I have it on a tools page in my userspace on en:wp.
-- gary kirk
On 8/8/06, Frederich, Eric P2173 eric.frederich@siemens.com wrote:
I can see both sides of the wiki markup issue.
I think it is very easy for anybody to change an existing page by
adding
something to a list, changing some wording around or other minor
edits.
To start a new page from scratch it can be intimidating.
The one thing I like about wiki markup is that it is readable unlike html. I am not sure how other wiki software does with WYSIWYG but I cannot stand any WYSIWYG html editor or WYSIWYG content management system.
-----Original Message----- From: mediawiki-l-bounces@Wikimedia.org [mailto:mediawiki-l-bounces@Wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Gary Kirk Sent: Tuesday, August 08, 2006 11:46 AM To: MediaWiki announcements and site admin list Subject: Re: [Mediawiki-l] Apple's Wiki Server brings WYSIWYG to wiki
I'm sorry, but I just don't understand how it is hard to use...sure, tables might be a little difficult, and having images how you want them too, but for simple editing it really isn't, especially with the edit bar.
-- gary kirk
On 8/8/06, MHart wiki@matthart.com wrote:
Intuit uses MediaWiki in the majority of its internal wikis - over
- We
have one MediaWiki running with fck. Some groups are migrating to
Jotspot
since it provides wysiwyg.
The lack of wysiwyg is indeed a hurdle for contributors. Even at a "techie" company like Intuit, half the potential contributors see wikitext as
a
hurdle.
This number likely reflects the rest of the world - it wouldn't
surprise
me if many potential Wikipedia contributors are also stymied by
wikitext.
Do
you have the number of Edit clicks that didn't then result in a
Save?
That
might be a decent indicator of first-time contribution attempts that failed for some reason - possibly intimidated by wikitext.
The one wiki we have with fck was an add-on to an existing wiki and encountered the compatibility issues Brion mentioned. However, just
as
the
community cleans up wikitext pages, the community cleaned up the conversion issues - just as they would in Wikipedia.
You get the closest conversion that you can and then people will
clean
up
what remains.
- MHart
MediaWiki-l mailing list MediaWiki-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/mediawiki-l
-- Gary Kirk _______________________________________________ MediaWiki-l mailing list MediaWiki-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/mediawiki-l _______________________________________________ MediaWiki-l mailing list MediaWiki-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/mediawiki-l
-- Gary Kirk _______________________________________________ MediaWiki-l mailing list MediaWiki-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/mediawiki-l _______________________________________________ MediaWiki-l mailing list MediaWiki-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/mediawiki-l
-- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.405 / Virus Database: 268.10.7/411 - Release Date: 07/08/2006
Jean-Lou Dupont a écrit :
I am not so sure about your numbers (95% - 5% split) -- the way I see things, corporations have Powerpoint, Word & Excel-DNA that isn't easily mutated/substituted. But then again, I have been many times wrong before.
these products are in no way obvious, specially excell...
and as of a wiki, the most difficult task is to _know_ how must the page be organised _on the content view point_
The layout is of little importance (wikipedia use)
jdd
On the whole I think this is a great development for people who are looking to get wiki functionality in a corporate enterprise environment. As it has been stated before, Mediawiki was never designed with that intent in mind and so the people trying to make it work in that capacity rely on hacks and custom code to make it work for them.
Wiki markup is a barrier to entry for some people. It just is, for any number of reasons previously mentioned and more. I know I picked it up very quickly, spent some time with the docs and whatnot, but I'm fairly techy. As my Mediawiki deployment is on a corporate intranet I'm very nervous about the adoption of the system by the average user. I work at a very technical company and even then I don't expect more than 10% of our user base to actively contribute. Not knowing what the numbers are for Wikipedia, however, this may be about the right ratio regardless.
Not to be inflammatory, but I do see some of the points being raised here about elitism and "technocracy", and although I think it's more rampant in the Linux community (the most rabid of which seem to think any knid of user-friendliness is the mark of Satan), it may very well be a problem for wiki communities as well.
Fortunately there are solutions. If one truly feels left out or underprivleged it really isn't that hand to read some docs and work it out. Administrators can ease the burden by making quick reference pages easily available and providing the proper support and training to the user base.
Expecting to just "build it and they will come" is naive, especially in the corporate enterprise.
and as of a wiki, the most difficult task is to _know_ how
must the page be organised _on the content view point_
Surely you jest - have you been to a presentation run from Powerpoint? You know how much time people spend getting the spacing on bullet points to line up exactly, with just the right font, and that cool little animation from the side?
- MHart
MHart a écrit :
and as of a wiki, the most difficult task is to _know_ how
must the page be organised _on the content view point_
Surely you jest - have you been to a presentation run from Powerpoint? You know how much time people spend getting the spacing on bullet points to line up exactly, with just the right font, and that cool little animation from the side?
I often _sleep_ at those presentations, probaly the ones you quote...
jdd
On 8 Aug 2006, at 4:46 PM, Gary Kirk wrote:
I'm sorry, but I just don't understand how it is hard to use...sure, tables might be a little difficult, and having images how you want them too, but for simple editing it really isn't, especially with the edit bar.
I'm not surprised that you don't understand Gary. Part of my job is system admin and support. The system admin part means that I understand a reasonable amount about how computers work. The support part means that I understand a reasonable amount about how people work when they're confronted with computer systems.
One thing I've noticed is that people who work a lot with computers can become impatient and unsympathetic towards people who don't. They can also tend to forget what it took to learn what they know. I've also noticed that they can develop an attitude of "well this is just the way computers work, I learnt to use it so so can you." My attitude is that computers should be tailored to work with human beings, not the other way around.
People who have lives that don't revolve around the internet or computers generally don't have the time or inclination to learn wiki markup, and they certainly don't have the time to relearn it every time they want to use it, which is what happens. Wiki markup is not like riding a bike. It's easily forgotten. To say it's "hard" is a misnomer. The main problem is that it's time consuming.
In my office I am presented with the argument from people that they have enough things to learn and keep up with with regard to our computers systems without having to learn another language. And, the answer is (and should be) they don't have to. And they won't have to. When Apple releases their new Server OS, we'll install it and they can forget all about wiki markup and start participating in the production of content ... which is the whole point.
Christiaan
I'm sorry, but I just don't understand how it is hard to use...sure, tables might be a little difficult, and having images how you want them too, but for simple editing it really isn't, especially with the edit bar.
[shrug]
It isn't hard for me either. And do you REALLY use the edit bar? I'm guessing you don't - as most contributors don't.
But how many non-techie wiki users do you have to support? I directly support, oh... about 300+ contributors spread over about 100 wikis. I've given several presentations on wikis and several hands-on instruction sessions on editing. I've written custom articles on how to get started with wikitext editing and given direct email support.
At a minimum, 50% of those contributors are still handicapped by wikitext, and another chunk of people simply don't contribute at all due to wikitext.
- MHart
MHart a écrit :
The lack of wysiwyg is indeed a hurdle for contributors.
this is probably just a lack of informations.
I see two problems
* page layout. urge the new user not to take any value to the layout. Use a "simple editor" way of life: titles are some word on one line, paragraph breaks are two carriage return, period. others will do the final layout, _this is collaborative effort_
* you need a table: open mozilla composer (or NVu), build your table there, open the source windos and copy.paste the content between <table> and </table> in the wiki page.
with this 90% of the wiki pages will go. images one by line, thats all.
_wiki is a collaborative effort_, let the experienced users do what you can't do and insert _your own invaluable experience_ as text...
jdd
- page layout. urge the new user not to take any value to
the layout. Use a "simple editor" way of life: titles are some word on one line, paragraph breaks are two carriage return, period. others will do the final layout, _this is collaborative effort_ <<
You've already lost these people when you say "titles are some word on a line". No it isn't. A title is a Title, and they want to make a Title look like it would look in a document line word. I select the font size and make it bold and it's a Title. == Title == doesn't make sense to these people. Sure, maybe after they've done it a few times. Problem is, that 50% I'm talking about will never do it when it looks like that.
- you need a table: open mozilla composer (or NVu), build
What's mozilla? What's NVu? What does <table></table> mean? These are their questions - the people I'm talking about will look at the paragraph you just wrote and see complete gibberish. They just want to Insert / Table and press Tab to add a row. Tables in Word are hard for people to understand - in wikitext or html or anything else? Forget it.
_wiki is a collaborative effort_, let the experienced users
do what you can't do and insert _your own invaluable experience_ as text... <<
I agree - that's the ideal. But it doesn't work that way in the real world. If a "wikitext-challenged user" - call him a WCU, clicks Edit to contribute and sees:
__NOTOC__ == People == {| !Desc !Name |- |Architect |Matt H |}
That WCU is going to click Cancel or Back. They aren't going to add their name to that - they have no idea how. Show them on a page how to add a line to a table - and they're still not going to do it. Afraid of messing it up. They are used to wysiwyg editors, they are not used to revision history and the restoration capability of MediaWiki.
- MHart
MHart a écrit :
You've already lost these people when you say "titles are some word on a line". No it isn't.
so you must teach writing to these people. at least wiki writing. if the layout is that important, probably the cotnent is of little interest.
we are not painters, here. The aspect of a page is already completely dependent of the browser setup, did you miss this?
do you know how many people uses the option "forgive the page fonts and setup, use only mine" because many web site are unreadable?
wrote and see complete gibberish. They just want to Insert / Table and press Tab to add a row. Tables in Word are hard for people to understand - in wikitext or html or anything else? Forget it.
web is html. may be this is the first thing, and html is _not_ what you want, layout wise.
to a table - and they're still not going to do it. Afraid of messing it up.
true, but also true in any word processor (and worst on any spreadsheet writer)
They are used to wysiwyg editors, they are not used to revision history and the restoration capability of MediaWiki.
wiki is a tool. any tool needs understanding and a wiki is far more simple as any Excell file.
on your case, make your users use Word (or better, OpenOffice.org), export to pdf and allow uploading of pdf... or use an other tool (other than wiki, other than the web).
jdd
on your case, make your users use Word (or better,
OpenOffice.org), export to pdf and allow uploading of pdf... or use an other tool (other than wiki, other than the web).
Yep - some people do exactly that. My baseline includes doc, xls, pdf, ppt. I wrote an extension... well, more like a special page... that seamlessly replaces the search with Google search, and our corporate Google appliance indexes ppts, docs, etc... So search results include things inside what people uploaded. (http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Google_Search-2)
Before Google, I modified the upload page to index doc, xls, ppt, and pdf using the standard mediawiki search stuff - again, for the same reason. I don't use those anymore, though.
Oh, and I totally agree with using OO - unfortunately... and bafflingly... we still pay the big bucks for Office apps. I use OO at home.
- MHart
You've already lost these people when you say "titles are some word on a line". No it isn't.
Perfect example just came in - I was asked a question, and this was part of the email thread - names, emails, etc... removed...
******* -----Original Message----- From: ------------ Sent: Friday, August 11, 2006 10:16 AM To: ---------------------- Subject: RE: Simplicity Wiki Admin
Very true. The markup makes it much harder to use. The wiki is only going to be used to document key dates and releases so -------- and I will be doing most of the editing. We originally wanted to document it on our ---------- but this was much easier.
---- - Yes, just in case, I would like to be an admin too.
Thanks, ------
_____________________________________________ From: -------------- Sent: Friday, August 11, 2006 8:06 AM To: ------------------------- Subject: RE: Simplicity Wiki Admin
Hi there,
I am the admin and had it set up originally. I've found though that SimplicityWiki had extremely low adoption rate relative to the WoMWiki because mediawiki is much harder for the lay-person to use. --------- - if you'd like, I will email ---------- and ask him to set you up as the admin. Let me know.
---------- | --------- | Senior Marketing Manager | ----------------------------
-----Original Message----- From: ---------------- Sent: Thursday, August 10, 2006 7:35 PM To: -------------------------- Subject: RE: Simplicity Wiki Admin
It looks like you guys are on the MediaWiki engine that most Intuit teams use. That engine is run by iLab, and if you're interested in talking to anyone you should speak to -----(me)-----, he's Mr. Wiki at Intuit.
-------
_____________________________________________ From: --------------- Sent: Thursday, August 10, 2006 6:00 PM To: ----------------- Subject: Simplicity Wiki Admin
Hi -------------,
I am not sure who owns the Simplicity Wiki, but the ---------- team has built a subsection off the Wiki for our own purposes (http://------------/-----/index.php/---------). Just wanted to know who the admin was in case we run into issues in the future ..
Thanks, -------
--------------- | Rotational Development Associate | ------------------------
*****
- MHart
MediaWiki is not targeted at internal office use. While some people do
use
it successfully in this market, we offer no support, have no
marketing,
make no income from it, and don't make any effort whatsoever to be more
than
tolerable for it.
This makes me wonder, why not offer paid support? Why not charge a yearly fee for regular support, and an hourly or bounty fee for programming support (that is if the programming support also goes in line with the direction of the software, WYSIWYG for example)?
It seems a large number of organizations are using the software, and I'm sure quite a few would pay for support. Couldn't this offset some of the development costs, and possibly bring in more developers?
V/r,
Ryan Lane
Lane, Ryan wrote:
This makes me wonder, why not offer paid support? Why not charge a yearly fee for regular support, and an hourly or bounty fee for programming support (that is if the programming support also goes in line with the direction of the software, WYSIWYG for example)?
We don't have the resources for it right now, but it's an option for the future which gets occasionally kicked around.
It may or may not require some corporate restructuring; can the non-profit operate such stuff? cf Mozilla etc.
-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
paying salaries or bying equipment or even providing services are (or at least can be) non-profit activities, if I understand something which I may not
I like the idea. For instance I would happily take part in such a "commercial" development. It could be even made under condition that the universal part of it will be open source - so that the community will win.
2006/8/10, Brion Vibber brion@pobox.com:
Lane, Ryan wrote:
This makes me wonder, why not offer paid support? Why not charge a yearly fee for regular support, and an hourly or bounty fee for programming support (that is if the programming support also goes in line with the direction of the software, WYSIWYG for example)?
We don't have the resources for it right now, but it's an option for the future which gets occasionally kicked around.
It may or may not require some corporate restructuring; can the non-profit operate such stuff? cf Mozilla etc.
-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
MediaWiki-l mailing list MediaWiki-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/mediawiki-l
At 18:48 -0400 9/8/06, Brion Vibber wrote:
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="------------enigC012E9A010D48C3E313B1ADA"
Lane, Ryan wrote:
This makes me wonder, why not offer paid support? Why not charge a yearly fee for regular support, and an hourly or bounty fee for programming support (that is if the programming support also goes in line with the direction of the software, WYSIWYG for example)?
We don't have the resources for it right now, but it's an option for the future which gets occasionally kicked around.
It may or may not require some corporate restructuring; can the non-profit operate such stuff? cf Mozilla etc.
-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
Remember CYGNUS?
gcc and the rest of the GNU suite was developed by Richard Stallman et al, but Cygnus made money from support. Surely that is the model?
Gordo
Gordon Joly wrote:
At 18:48 -0400 9/8/06, Brion Vibber wrote:
Lane, Ryan wrote:
This makes me wonder, why not offer paid support? Why not charge a yearly fee for regular support, and an hourly or bounty fee for programming support (that is if the programming support also goes in line with the direction of the software, WYSIWYG for example)?
We don't have the resources for it right now, but it's an option for the future which gets occasionally kicked around.
It may or may not require some corporate restructuring; can the non-profit operate such stuff? cf Mozilla etc.
Remember CYGNUS?
Yes, it was a for-profit company and got bought by another for-profit company. Hence, what I said above. ;)
-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
At 13:04 -0700 13/8/06, Brion Vibber wrote:
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="------------enig69B7641BE29FDDE477A7C356"
Gordon Joly wrote:
At 18:48 -0400 9/8/06, Brion Vibber wrote:
Lane, Ryan wrote:
This makes me wonder, why not offer paid support? Why not charge a yearly fee for regular support, and an hourly or bounty fee for programming support (that is if the programming support also goes in line with the direction of the software, WYSIWYG for example)?
We don't have the resources for it right now, but it's an option for the future which gets occasionally kicked around.
It may or may not require some corporate restructuring; can the non-profit operate such stuff? cf Mozilla etc.
Remember CYGNUS?
Yes, it was a for-profit company and got bought by another for-profit company. Hence, what I said above. ;)
-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
You could resign from your current position, and start Brion Vibber Inc, then?
:-)
Gordo
On Wed, 2006-08-09 at 18:48 -0400, Brion Vibber wrote:
[Offering paid support] may or may not require some corporate restructuring; can the non-profit operate such stuff? cf Mozilla etc.
I am not a lawyer, but I would think some of the same issues Mozilla had would apply. Christopher Blizzard lays it out really well in his blog:
http://www.0xdeadbeef.com/weblog/?p=19
In particular, this part:
Under non-profit tax law there are various kinds of contributions that you can accept. Individual donations, corporate donations, etc. Tax law lays out tests to determine if you are a non-profit: certain types of revenue that come from various sources and are the result of different kinds of activities have to meet certain percentage requirements. We've got some relationships that create revenue that at some point in the future might make it difficult for us to maintain our non-profit status based on those tests. Those relationships have given us the resources to make Firefox and Thunderbird successful so we didn't think that it would be right to our users and our community to end those relationships. At the same time, our non-profit status is very important to us. We didn't feel it was an option to give that up either.
So, conceivably, Wikimedia Foundation might be able to get away with offering support contracts, without change. However, if the total of those support contracts started to make up a significant component of the revenue of the foundation, a restructuring would probably be in order.
My understanding with the Mozilla Foundation was that they were already getting a pile of money from Google, Nokia, and others for which there was a little too much quid pro quo for too much of their revenue, so they needed to act. I'm guessing WF doesn't have that problem yet.
Personally, I've done a little MediaWiki consulting, and have been toying with the idea of offering a standardized paid support option myself, but I'm unsure if the market is ready for that yet.
My question for the list: if such an option were available, would there be customers for it?
Rob
mediawiki-l@lists.wikimedia.org