NOTE: slightly off topic here. This is more a meta-discussion, a
discussion about our discussions. Though the example used herein is
MediaWiki.org, the general principals discussed may apply at all the
Foundation projects that are on a wiki.
--
Peter Blaise says: Thanks for the dialog, but could we be more specific?
When writing:
> Earlier: "...you shouldn't contribute
> encyclopedia articles or use Wikipedia
> policies [on the http://www.mediawiki.org/
> wiki]...It's for the software, not an
> encyclopedia..."
... what do we mean? The reason I ask is because I cannot imagine any
other or better way to support MediaWiki software itself than:
- to be encyclopedic in scope, and
- to be all-inclusive and democratic in participation.
In other words, support MediaWiki software with a Wiki, an open-access
encyclopedia, dedicated to MediaWiki software.
Instead, I find the wiki at http://www.mediawiki.org/ to be missing
basic, essential information - not encyclopedic in scope.
Instead I find that all of us out here who implement and use the freely
available MediaWiki software are NOT welcome and are not encouraged to
share our experiences with other MediaWiki implementers and supporters.
Is it just overzealous (or overworked?) admins?
For example, go to http://www.mediawiki.org/ and search for almost ANY
basic wiki word related to MediaWiki software, and you'll get a RED
response, meaning there's no page for what you're lookin' for. Try:
- smtp
- preferences
- navigation
- search
- toolbox
- sysop
...and on and on, for almost ANY MediaWiki-dedicated word you see on a
MediaWiki screen. The list of missing entries, the lack of encyclopedic
support of MediaWiki software on MediaWiki.org is huge!
Then, as with any wiki, go ahead and do it yourself. Go ahead and build
a page to support that missing word, even a "stub", or starter page, or
disambiguation page, to get things going. It's a wiki, after all - edit
every page!
And then watch.
Admins there will delete that page and tell you to keep your hands off
the site.
OUCH!
Then try to dialog on the discussion / talk pages with them, and suggest
that you have a need for help with the info you tried to record there.
Suggest that there's a whole new wave of MediaWiki implementers out here
that are not at all like the initial coders currently managing the site.
Suggest that we all can get along, and each have different but
non-competitive contributions to offer - "hey, let's build a MediaWiki
support encyclopedia wiki" - ... and they'll ban you.
So, what then do we think the wikis surrounding the Foundation,
especially MediaWiki.org, are for?
> Peter Blaise wrote earlier: "... THAT
> is the problem - we all don't believe
> in our own product (MediaWiki wiki
> software), or our own producers
> (admins of independently installed
> MediaWiki wikis), or our own
> customers (users of those
> independently installed MediaWiki
> wikis), enough to trust them and
> include them with equivalent
> consideration at all levels! We
> might say, "How preposterous, to
> let anyone contribute to foundation
> or software projects!" ..."
> Response: "...Why would we let
> them? It's the corporate website.
> Do you let anyone have write
> access to your corporate website?..."
Peter Blaise responds: Well, if I had "Wiki" in my corporate name, and
it's the ONLY product I had to offer, I guess I have to give it a try
and show the world that I trust my own product enough to use it myself!
"Example isn't just another way to teach. It's the only way." --
attributed to Albert Einstein.
So, yes, I'd suggest opening up ALL Foundation wikis, at last on their
discussion / talk pages, to anyone interested, and start to follow their
own lead of Wikipedia.
Further, I suggest enhancing the MediaWiki software to permit moderation
preview of "posts" and edits if the installer of the software needs the
benefits of that feature. I believe this selectable feature alone would
expand MediaWiki software to address the biggest challenges - blocking,
banning, and anonymity, and the *fighting* over blocking, banning, and
anonymity!
> Earlier; "...[However,] MediaWiki.org
> is an openly editable site..."
Peter Blaise responds: Not in my experience.
Hence my chagrin and befuddlement trying very, very hard to be an
evangelist for MediaWiki out here in the real world, yet turning around
and finding such hardened unwillingness from the Foundation's own wikis
to permit us to participate in free and open encyclopedic wikis to
support us all.
-- Peter Blaise
I look forward to seeing how this works out. I think the choice of something
to be listed as a stable version should be made very carefully, because a
new contributor seeing something listed as "stable" would probably be
lesslikely to offer any sort of improvements, since they would think
the work
was already complete. But then again, seeing something listed as stable
could also be a sign that it hasn't been hurt by vandalism. There would just
have to be an efficient system in place by which people can decide when to
move from one stable version to another, and it would be difficult I think
to determine whether the default view for anons especially but also for
logged in users should be the stable or the unstable view.
Matt
On 9/18/07, textbook-l-request(a)lists.wikimedia.org <
textbook-l-request(a)lists.wikimedia.org> wrote:
>
> Send Textbook-l mailing list submissions to
> textbook-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/textbook-l
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> textbook-l-request(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> textbook-l-owner(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of Textbook-l digest..."
>
> Today's Topics:
>
> 1. quality.wikimedia.org and wikiquality-l launched (Erik Moeller)
>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: "Erik Moeller" <erik(a)wikimedia.org>
> To: wikipedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org, "Wikimedia textbook discussion" <
> textbook-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>, "The Wiktionary (
> http://www.wiktionary.org) mailing list" <wiktionary-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>,
> "discussion list for Wikisource, the free library" <
> wikisource-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>, "Wikinews mailing list" <
> wikinews-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>, "Wikimedia Commons Discussion List" <
> commons-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>, "Mailing list for Wikiversity" <
> wikiversity-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
> Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2007 22:58:27 +0200
> Subject: [Textbook-l] quality.wikimedia.org and wikiquality-l launched
> [Please translate this announcement into other languages.]
>
> Wikipedia's roots in the more conservative Nupedia project are reflected
> by
> many in-depth discussions we've had over the years about quality
> assurance,
> filtering, and labeling.
>
> In her "4 wishes for the year 2007" [1], Wikimedia Foundation Chair
> Florence Devouard also identified "reliability" as a key goal for the
> Wikimedia Foundation. Today we're taking two small steps towards that
> goal:
>
> * the launch of http://quality.wikimedia.org/ as a portal targeting
> readers and volunteers to summarize key information about current
> quality initiatives, combined with
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikiquality as a more in-depth
> description of our plans,
>
> * the opening of wikiquality-l as a mailing list for related discussions:
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikiquality-l
>
> Notably, these pages describe our current plans with regard to the
> "FlaggedRevs" extension, a MediaWiki extension developed by Aaron
> Schulz and Jörg Baach (with financial support from Wikimedia
> Deutschland e.V.) which makes it possible to identify revisions of
> articles that are known to be of a certain quality, and to change the
> default view based on that information.
>
> The public beta of this feature (initially on dummy websites, i.e. not
> production environments) will begin as soon as a security review of
> the current code has been completed (expected later this month). In
> the meantime, please give your feedback on the quality.wikimedia.org
> portal, add translations, and subscribe to wikiquality-l to join
> future discussions about the specifics of any particular initiative.
>
> [1] http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/4_wishes_for_year_2007
>
> Sincerely,
> Erik Möller
> Board member, Wikimedia Foundation
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Textbook-l mailing list
> Textbook-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/textbook-l
>
>
[Please translate this announcement into other languages.]
Wikipedia's roots in the more conservative Nupedia project are reflected by
many in-depth discussions we've had over the years about quality assurance,
filtering, and labeling.
In her "4 wishes for the year 2007" [1], Wikimedia Foundation Chair
Florence Devouard also identified "reliability" as a key goal for the
Wikimedia Foundation. Today we're taking two small steps towards that
goal:
* the launch of http://quality.wikimedia.org/ as a portal targeting
readers and volunteers to summarize key information about current
quality initiatives, combined with
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikiquality as a more in-depth
description of our plans,
* the opening of wikiquality-l as a mailing list for related discussions:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikiquality-l
Notably, these pages describe our current plans with regard to the
"FlaggedRevs" extension, a MediaWiki extension developed by Aaron
Schulz and Jörg Baach (with financial support from Wikimedia
Deutschland e.V.) which makes it possible to identify revisions of
articles that are known to be of a certain quality, and to change the
default view based on that information.
The public beta of this feature (initially on dummy websites, i.e. not
production environments) will begin as soon as a security review of
the current code has been completed (expected later this month). In
the meantime, please give your feedback on the quality.wikimedia.org
portal, add translations, and subscribe to wikiquality-l to join
future discussions about the specifics of any particular initiative.
[1] http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/4_wishes_for_year_2007
Sincerely,
Erik Möller
Board member, Wikimedia Foundation