+ Automatic translation of discussions is essential, tangibly useful for our communities, and very satisfying.
--> how can we bring this to Mediawiki? This is a core question for community health, movement development, and tech. It is a straightforward concept, not exclusive to Discourse, and we should learn from it.
I filed T309920
a while ago, it has some technical details. IMO it's doable (although things usually turn out harder than they look when they have to be built on top of an unstructured soup of wikitext, but AIUI the Editing team has done some great foundational work to make MediaWiki discussion pages more manageable, so maybe these days that's less of an issue) but it would be a largish project that would have to be slotted into the WMF's annual planning.
Thank you for this info. I hope it can be realistic and a priority for the next annual plan.
+ Forum threading and features (tags, emotes) are nice, beloved by some.
They aren't "nice", they are essential for scaling discussion. Just like you can't manage thousands of articles without some kind of category system, you can't manage thousands of discussions without some kind of tagging system. And likes or reacjis allow scaling up the number of participants without excluding anyone from the discussion who is unwilling to spend several hours a day on reading new comments - they both cut down on the number of comments, and allow software to highlight the most important or most representative comments.
Well said...will only add that even most simple option to add 'like'-like feedback makes huge difference as it at least partly cuts down on extra messages that feel like unnecessary spam in big mailing-lists and telegram groups (those that did not turned on that recent feature).
--> how might we support integrating discourse into a) mediawiki, b) interwiki links? (so that a forum post could link to m:Power_structure, and a meta post could link to f:Wikischool)
MediaWiki is concept-addressable; forum software aren't because they need to deal with more and messier content. You could have something with like f:123 but I'm not sure it adds value over plain links.
From what I learned as Drupal user is that having multiple (fixed and flexible) taxonomies for tagging could be super useful and I hope this feature gets developed in both core Discourse and MediaWiki (even if just on user end).
– Wikimedia Space was closed after a year, and its links no longer resolve.
I apologize for that. Space needs to be migrated from Debian Stretch to Buster as part of a generic upgrade of Wikimedia Cloud infrastructure. I volunteered to do it but it turned out to be non-straightforward, or possibly I've been going at it wrong, I ran out of time, and then kinda forgot about it. I'll try to wrap it up soon.
Thank you for volunteering for this, but I think it should be systematically done by more than one person and as part of WMF workflows.
--> how can we add discourse into current versioning + archiving workflows?
A good question regardless! There was some discussion in T235235
, but it didn't go far.
See also T262275
, which is about a different Discourse site (which I didn't think was worth keeping up), but it shows a minimal-effort solution for keeping discussion content available and links working in perpetuity, although in a rather ugly format.
Think living with ugly is kind of bearable in Wikimedia world ;-p
IMHO use of w.wiki subdomains, should not be bad option :-)
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- email@example.com, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
Public archives at https://firstname.lastname@example.org/message/EUZF3B6AIG4NSFKQ3NEIM3K7YEX7LJPV/
To unsubscribe send an email to email@example.com