2014-09-07 4:17 GMT+03:00 Risker risker.wp@gmail.com:
I think the design of Flow is much like the liqueur-filled chocolates. It's missed the point of a discussion space on Wikimedia projects. All
the
use cases in the world, no matter how carefully researched and accounted for, will help you build a discussion system to effectively replace a discussion system if you don't understand that the one overriding, incontrovertible feature of the current system is that it is a page that acts just like all the other wiki pages, with all the same functions, and anyone who can work on one wiki-page can work on any of them.
I see your point, but the fact is that the current system is NOT a page that acts just like all the other wiki pages.
Talk pages use categories differently. Article talk pages, for better or worse, don't have interlanguage links. Talk pages use : for indentation a lot; articles rarely use this piece of syntax. Talk pages can use templates the same way as articles, but the actual templates used on them are different. Long talk pages are archived; articles aren't. Talk pages have signatures; articles, for better or worse, don't. Talk pages rarely have images.
So yes, the wiki syntax is the same, but the practice of its use is fundamentally different. And voila - the wiki syntax in Flow works much the same way as elsewhere - links, templates, etc. The plan is to use the same VisualEditor as for articles in the future. What Flow replaces is the crutches built to force wiki pages into being discussion forums - "talkback", indentation, archive templates and bots, the infinite edit conflicts, etc.
-- Amir Elisha Aharoni · אָמִיר אֱלִישָׁע אַהֲרוֹנִי http://aharoni.wordpress.com “We're living in pieces, I want to live in peace.” – T. Moore