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
Dear community,
On Thu, Sep 20, 2007 at 04:17:27PM -0400, Monahon, Peter B. wrote:
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?
Just what it says: Don't confuse MediaWiki.org with Wikipedia.org. The difference isn't obvious to everyone. These are different projects and simply the fact that they use the same software to present information on the WWW doesn't imply anything but shared technological limitations.
But that's all it says. It's not saying you shouldn't contribute /any/ articles or use /no/ policies at all. Simply that you should keep in mind that for different projects, different approaches are needed.
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.
I disagree. From http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/About_this_site: "MediaWiki.org has only one topic: the homonymous wiki engine MediaWiki."
There is nothing about this that demands either encyclopedic scope or open, democratic participation. Nor any reason why that would be the best way to build the site.
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.
I disagree again. I had a (too short a) stint contributing to MW.org while I was working on a community project which used the MW software.
During that time I found the developers -- who were the majority of the regulars -- to be open to new ideas and dedicated to the task at hand.
Is it just overzealous (or overworked?) admins?
It could be a bit of the latter (parenthesized). I found them to be mostly trying to get the technical aspects of the documentation settled, before attacking the huge task of moving and refactoring the relevant manual pages from Meta.
They were, however, dedicated to doing it well and there were several discussions on the best way to present and organize the manuals. I think they have a good idea going. That idea is to have a consistent manual rather than a sporadic set of slowly growing stubs that take a whole lot of work and overview to tie together afterwards.
There is also the problem of the Meta handbook which contains a huge amount of contributed material of sometimes very good material. The plan is to import the good parts into the MW.org manual. Merging it with a myriad of pages on various topics would prove to be hell for anyone to undertake.
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
I tried them all and, though I didn't get a "red response", not once was I taken to a specific page with information on the search-word. Each time, however, I got a list of pages that might interest me.
Which I think is great. Now, depending on who you are (user, admin or dev) you will be looking for different things regarding each of these topics. There is no reason why one should make any assumptions about the motives for the search.
As for editing the wiki. If you're interested in improving the resources on MW.org, please begin by reading up on the structure that has been decided on. Granted, you may have some great ideas to contribute regarding the presentation of information on MediaWiki. In that case, I would hope you'd take them to the community and try your best to convince them.
Keep in mind, however, that the presentation that has been agreed upon was decided after lengthy discussion, and that there is always the possibility that the crowd is right. Some -- including many proponents of democracy -- would argue that that is in fact the most likely.
Thanks for your time, Martin Swift
On 9/21/07, Monahon, Peter B. <Peter.Monahon@uspto.gov > wrote:
I find the wiki at http://www.mediawiki.org/ to be missing basic, essential information - not encyclopedic in scope. ...
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.
...
The list of missing entries, the lack of encyclopedic
support of MediaWiki software on MediaWiki.org is huge!
One of the enduring flaws of MediaWiki (the software, not the site) is that its search feature is surprisingly unintuitive. In the case of MediaWiki.org, things are made even worse by some of the information still being on Meta waiting to be transwikied. It's often easier to find what you want by Googling site:mediawiki.org Some Keyword (although bear in mind that very new pages won't be indexed yet).
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?
From a casual glance at the block log I can't find the particular incident
you're referring to, but the site certainly has a much smaller scope than Wikipedia.
MediaWiki.org has strict policies about namespace usage (see http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Project:Namespaces), and there is virtually nothing in the article namespace; because the search function's "Go" button only auto-detects articles in the main namespace that information will often be covered in great detail in another page, so I guess newbies coming in and making "inferior" stubs about these topics gets very annoying. Without a huge amount of redirects or a major overhaul of the search engine there's only so much that can be done to avoid these unwanted pages.
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.
It seems to me that MediaWiki.org only houses three "books"; the Manual, the Help, and the Extensions; while the extensions are largely sorted by categories, the Manual and Help have straightforward structures of namespaces and navigation (not unlike works at Wikibooks) rather than mere interlinking as with Wikipedia. Any pages that fall outside these seem to be focussed on defining and improving the scope and content of these collections, so general encyclopedia-style information has no place there under the current policy.
One thing to consider is contributing to a "fan" wiki instead, and building the sort of information you want there. If the MediaWiki.org residents like how it turns out that information could perhaps be merged back in, or even just linked to from the appropriate pages. Certainly there are things people like to know that don't necessarily fall into the way these three volumes are currently presented.
http://www.mwusers.com/wiki/index.php/Main_Page is a possible location; while it's relatively empty at the moment it has a wider scope than just the software. Perhaps someone could start a drive to get more information there. As an added bonus the site has its own forums for less structured discussion.
Garrett
textbook-l@lists.wikimedia.org