Wikia is dinky? ShoutWiki is antiquated? I don't necessarily disagree
with your overall point, but please don't generalise like this; an
innacurate statement like that just takes away from it.
On 01/10/13 21:34, Ori Livneh wrote:
On Tue, Oct 1, 2013 at 12:50 PM, Quim Gil
<qgil(a)wikimedia.org> wrote:
On 10/01/2013 11:11 AM, Brion Vibber wrote:
Question for the group:
Would an officially supported general-purpose MediaWiki hosting service be
useful to people who would like to run wikis, but don't have the time,
expertise, or resources to maintain their own installation?
If so, what can we (as interested parties in MediaWiki development and
use)
do to make this happen?
I'd say agree the best approach first with folks like
https://www.mediawiki.org/**wiki/Hosting_services<https://www.mediawiki.…
There are many small companies trying to make a living out of (among other
things) MediaWiki hosting and expertise. If we are missing players more
involved with the community then we could start knocking those doors rather
than triying to build an own house and call it "official".
Can I just say: they're all dinky and antiquated and none of them come
close to offering the kind of deployment and configuration experience that
I expect a modern platform to have.
I don't like this "every time you have a new idea, God kills a Community
member" approach. It'd be more productive to think about the role the
Foundation could play in ensuring that MediaWiki exposes the right set of
interfaces for deep integration with configuration management and cloud
provisioning platforms, and ensuring that these interfaces are intuitive
and well-documented. This might actually spur some innovation.
_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l