On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 6:02 PM, Risker
<risker.wp(a)gmail.com> wrote:
How about just converting those threads back to
Wikitext, instead? That
script already exists, I've seen it used on Mediawiki. Will it mess up
the
pages that have already been converted using that
script?
Bottom line, it makes no sense to replace software that was considered
barely suitable when it was first developed with "new" software that
can't
even do what that old, long-neglected software
could do...and in several
cases, there is no intention to ever add the features already available
using Wikitext.
As expectations increase for project users to post their
comments/concerns/ideas/observations on Mediawiki, the use of Flow will
become a barrier for participation.
As someone who used LQT a lot, I'd say I'd much rather flow replace the
pages I maintained using LQT. Maybe you dislike flow, but it's *way* more
useful than wikitext for discussion. I never want to go back to the days
where I needed to discuss things with wikitext ever again. Wikitext
discussion pages are just the absolute worst.
I hear what you are saying, Ryan. I'm also reflecting on the fact that as
there is increasing pressure on "ordinary" editors to post their
discussions about Mediawiki on the Mediawikiwiki, they would then
encountering *another* new interface that doesn't operate in anything
similar to what they've experienced before, and that we know isn't up to
handling stuff that even LQT handled without blinking. On the other hand,
based on what I'm hearing about the "success" of installing Flow on
Office-wiki, the end result may very well be fewer people coming to
complain about something else, which might be viewed as a net positive.
Risker/Anne