On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 9:20 AM, Jay Walsh <jwalsh(a)wikimedia.org> wrote: MediaWiki + LQT (or the likes) for the comments and you are basically there. In addition you have less to worry about in regards to the WordpRess exploits (as pointed out by Daniel) and you open up to a whole new ecocycle of developers we already have.

On 20 March 2013 02:06, K. Peachey <p858snake(a)gmail.com> wrote: Cobbling together blog software is a one-man project; having a versatile, well-maintained and mature blog engine with ubiquitous third-party support is another matter. You could turn WordPress into an encyclopedia CMS too, but it would be well below optimum. WordPress has all manner of problems (I am painfully aware of this, I have to hit it with a hammer in my day job) but it is basically the best available for the job. MediaWiki has all manner of problems (you are painfully aware of this, I'm certain) but, similarly, there's nothing better for the job. It's possible we could do better with something adapted, but not from MediaWiki. For one thing, WordPress's visual editor works ... - d. - d. _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 1:54 PM, Isarra Yos <zhorishna(a)gmail.com> wrote: I actually don't think it would be. Mediawiki is an awesome tool for many things but we really shouldn't be using it for things it isn't good for/meant for. Wordpress is a very good, modular, option for bogs in particular and is, in my opinion, a perfectly acceptable thing to use for that. In order to have any good design setup for the blog on mediawiki we would have to be using a fair bit of rawhtml (something that mediawiki allows but was never really meant for) and very complicated templates. We would also need to have a much more understandable comment system then mediawiki has right now. Liquid threads isn't meant for this type of conversation, mediawiki itself sucks horribly for a comment type system and while flow type stuff may be helpful it is down the road and not really in scope currently from my understanding. In order to make it flexible enough for those running the blog on the front end (Staff / Volunteers etc) we would have to make it relatively easy to understand that rawhtml/template system at least at some level which is, in my opinion, too much to ask of them. They should be focused on what they are writing and other work, not trying to work around the page itself. Our current visual editor is also unlikely to be workable with that complicated of a template system in any near future. It would create an enormous amount of complication for something that doesn't need it. Dogfooding our product is great but shouldnt' be done "just because" it should be done where the product makes sense for the task. James James Alexander Manager, Merchandise Wikimedia Foundation (415) 839-6885 x6716 @jamesofur _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l