Hmm, why should such wikis be a problem? :-) Private wikis are there to
support content projects, and if a group thinks it's a good idea to have
one, I don't think it's a problem to give it to them :-).
Martin
ne 5. 7. 2020 v 11:48 odesílatel MA <strigiwm(a)gmail.com> napsal:
Hello,
For starters I am not sure I feel very comfortable with the precedent
of creating private wikis for administrators as we risk that list
increasing once we open that door.
On the other hand I can see the shortcomings of a mailing list (even a
private one) to coordinate or document LTAs et al. As an
administrator, I understand the need to keep some stuff hidden to
avoid e.g. spoiling some anti-vandalism measures.
If the wiki is to be created I agree with Martin that using the
current schema would be better for consistency, and to avoid typing
'wiki' two times (User:xxx@sysop_itwiki v. User:xxx@sysop_itwikiwiki).
Best regards, M.
El sáb., 4 jul. 2020 a las 22:01, Martin Urbanec
(<martin.urbanec(a)wikimedia.cz>) escribió:
Hey,
we have several arbcom wikis, which all follow scheme of
arbcom-xx.wikipedia.org,
where xx is the language code. Daimona recently
requested a new wiki for sysops, using the same scheme <
https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T256545>gt;.
However, @Amir Ladsgroup points out this makes little sense, and
sysop-itwiki.wikimedia.org would make more sense.
My opinion is we should stick with our current standard, given it works
for any
hypothetical arbcom/sysop/whatever for any wiki, we'll just prepend
the wiki domain name with a prefix describing the wiki functionality.
Opinions?
Martin
--
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send
an email to
sitereq-l+unsubscribe(a)wikimedia.org.
--
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
email to sitereq-l+unsubscribe(a)wikimedia.org.