Hi,
I want to allow users to filter searches of a Mediawiki's content so that search results that match user-selected categories *and* the search term would be returned.
For example, along with the standard search box (text field for search term) a user could be presented with a treed list of all categories with check boxes by them. Only when a category's check box is checked by the user for a given "advanced/category-filtered" search would content in that category be searched. User could select ***as many or few categories*** as he likes and the search tool would search only within those categories.
Has anyone seen anything like this implemented for Mediawiki? Or for any other content management system?
Thanks,
Roger
"Any other content management system..."
(sigh) MediaWiki is not a CMS. Thank you.
Rob Church
On 04/02/06, Roger Chrisman roger@rogerchrisman.com wrote:
Hi,
I want to allow users to filter searches of a Mediawiki's content so that search results that match user-selected categories *and* the search term would be returned.
For example, along with the standard search box (text field for search term) a user could be presented with a treed list of all categories with check boxes by them. Only when a category's check box is checked by the user for a given "advanced/category-filtered" search would content in that category be searched. User could select ***as many or few categories*** as he likes and the search tool would search only within those categories.
Has anyone seen anything like this implemented for Mediawiki? Or for any other content management system?
Thanks,
Roger
Roger Chrisman (650) 387-4732 Palo Alto _______________________________________________ MediaWiki-l mailing list MediaWiki-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/mediawiki-l
Rob Church wrote:
"Any other content management system..."
(sigh) MediaWiki is not a CMS. Thank you.
According to Wikipedia, Mediawiki is a CMS:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_content_management_systems
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:MediaWiki#CMS
( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Content_management_system ):
"A content management system (CMS) is a computer software system for organizing and facilitating collaborative creation of documents and other content. A content management system is frequently a web application used for managing websites and web content,"
Could anyone who feels with conviction that Mediawiki is NOT a CMS, please explain.
Thanks, Roger
A letter opener isn't a swizzle stick, but if it works, why not...
I was going to quote wikipedia's definition of CMS also - check out the page on CMS... :-) ----- Original Message ----- From: Roger Chrisman To: MediaWiki announcements and site admin list Sent: Sunday, February 05, 2006 6:55 PM Subject: [Mediawiki-l] CMS or NOT? (was: Categories as search filters for aRefined/Advanced Search Tool)
Rob Church wrote:
"Any other content management system..."
(sigh) MediaWiki is not a CMS. Thank you.
According to Wikipedia, Mediawiki is a CMS:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_content_management_systems
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:MediaWiki#CMS
( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Content_management_system ):
"A content management system (CMS) is a computer software system for organizing and facilitating collaborative creation of documents and other content. A content management system is frequently a web application used for managing websites and web content,"
Could anyone who feels with conviction that Mediawiki is NOT a CMS, please explain.
Thanks, Roger _______________________________________________ MediaWiki-l mailing list MediaWiki-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/mediawiki-l
On Sun, 2006-02-05 at 18:55 -0700, Michael Dorosh wrote:
A letter opener isn't a swizzle stick, but if it works, why not... From: Roger Chrisman Could anyone who feels with conviction that Mediawiki is NOT a CMS, please explain.
The problem that you have is that there is no concrete definition (the CMS page on WP notwithstanding) of CMS. It's a general label that has come to be applied to "that stuff that's non site-specific, and sits on top of a Web server". Because so many people first hear the term in connection with a specific CMS, they often come to expect that that CMS's features are universally "CMSish".
It is often more valuable to discuss specific terminology for specific tasks. For example, Vignette's StoryServer (now simply Vignette) was based around a workflow publishing system. Workflow is a common element of many CMSes, but not, for example, MediaWiki. Revision control is a major part of MediaWiki, and of many other CMSes, but not all. The feature list goes on.
MediaWiki *is* a CMS, but that does not mean that it provides that facilities that everyone has come to expect of a CMS (nor, in all cases, should it).
On 2/5/06, Roger Chrisman roger@rogerchrisman.com wrote:
Could anyone who feels with conviction that Mediawiki is NOT a CMS, please explain.
I don't. In fact, I believe very strongly that a wiki is indeed a CMS.. since a wiki's primary purpose is to .. be a system to manage content. However, some wikis do it in a "wiki way" and break the common-sense rules found with the older CMS'.
Now it's that "wiki way" philosophical difference that sets a "real-CMS" apart from the "wiki-CMS".
A "proper CMS" manages its content in the traditionally strict "I am the management system, I am in charge" most especially with permissions. It focuses on the _management_ part of CMS.
A "wiki CMS" merely plays host to its content in a loose "let me help you put your content somewhere" most especially by allowing loginless anonymous contribution. It focuses on the _content_ part of CMS.
Mediawiki is not a CMS in the traditional sense because it has not been created with the kind of strict security model which a traditional CMS would have. Even though there are roles and permissions in MediaWiki (page locking, administrative pages) I understand that there is no faith in the existing security to extend it into CMS-like stuff like per-page unix style permissions.. like what a "traditional CMS" would have.
So the easy way to explain mediawiki's stance is to say it's not a CMS.
Technically text files in a directory is a CMS.. technically mediawiki is a CMS.
On 2/6/06, Sy Ali sy1234@gmail.com wrote:
On 2/5/06, Roger Chrisman roger@rogerchrisman.com wrote:
Could anyone who feels with conviction that Mediawiki is NOT a CMS, please explain.
I don't. In fact, I believe very strongly that a wiki is indeed a CMS.. since a wiki's primary purpose is to .. be a system to manage content. However, some wikis do it in a "wiki way" and break the common-sense rules found with the older CMS'.
The critical word here, I think is "management".
Now it's that "wiki way" philosophical difference that sets a "real-CMS" apart from the "wiki-CMS".
The wiki-way is doing content management only in the loosest sense. It's really a way of content organization, which allows the content to be built up as a directed graph of nodes/articles/pages whatever you want to call them.
But a wiki itself leaves management of the content to the users. It takes a laissez-faire attitude to controlling what the content is. Wikis are really a social experiment which tests the notion that a base of interested users can police the content without requiring sophisticated/complicated policies implemented in the software.
A "proper CMS" manages its content in the traditionally strict "I am the management system, I am in charge" most especially with permissions. It focuses on the _management_ part of CMS.
A "wiki CMS" merely plays host to its content in a loose "let me help you put your content somewhere" most especially by allowing loginless anonymous contribution. It focuses on the _content_ part of CMS.
We're in violent agreement here, except since wikis don't focus on management, I think that it's stretching things to call them a Content Management System. Perhaps another term like Content Aggregation System might be more appropriate as a general term which would cover a gamut including wikis, CMSes, file systems etc.
Mediawiki is not a CMS in the traditional sense because it has not been created with the kind of strict security model which a traditional CMS would have. Even though there are roles and permissions in MediaWiki (page locking, administrative pages) I understand that there is no faith in the existing security to extend it into CMS-like stuff like per-page unix style permissions.. like what a "traditional CMS" would have.
It's not really a matter of faith, but one of beliefs. The "wiki-way" is a belief that it's better to allow incorrect content to be quickly fixed by users instead of putting security hurdles in place which prevent this. It's a belief that the user base is better at keeping the content on track than a pre-planned authorization scheme.
So the easy way to explain mediawiki's stance is to say it's not a CMS.
Technically text files in a directory is a CMS.. technically mediawiki is a CMS.
It's interesting to note that the Content Management System article on wikipedia makes no mention of wikis, and the Wiki article makes no mention of CMS, Content Management System(s), (or even the word management for that matter). This also appears to be the case with the corresponding talk pages for these articles.
So while one could read the definition of CMS from the wikipedia article as covering wikis, I think that it's stretching things a bit.
It seems that there are a lot of folks who discover wiki software like mediawiki or one of its "competitors," then decide they really want more "management" and start asking for features which are incompatible with the belief system which motivates the wiki developers. At the risk of stirring up controversy, that's somewhat like walking into a mosque because you think that it's a beautiful building, wandering around inside for a while, and then asking, "where can I get a beer? Let's put a bar in that corner!"
It's an example of Maslov's observation that "when the only tool you have is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail." When the tool bag doesn't afford the tools to meet your needs, it might be time to start looking at adding to it. Those looking for more structure to managing access and creation of content, are probably better served by looking at other tools such as drupal, plone/zope or the many other available tools which come from different belief systems.
-- Rick DeNatale
Visit the Project Mercury Wiki Site http://www.mercuryspacecraft.com/
mediawiki-l@lists.wikimedia.org