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