Is ProofreadPage documented anywhere, or just in SVN? I couldn't find it on mediawiki.org
-- Jim
On 4/19/07, Tim Starling tstarling@wikimedia.org wrote:
ThomasV: ProofreadPage extension
Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
On 19/04/07, Jim Wilson wilson.jim.r@gmail.com wrote:
Is ProofreadPage documented anywhere, or just in SVN? I couldn't find it on mediawiki.org
(sigh)
If only we had one of those fabulous wiki things set up where anyone could document it...
Rob Church
A end-user doc is avaiable, despiste the unavailable of a tech-doc
http://fr.wikisource.org/wiki/Aide:Affichage_par_pages http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Help:Side_by_side_image_view_for_proofreading
On 4/19/07, Rob Church robchur@gmail.com wrote:
On 19/04/07, Jim Wilson wilson.jim.r@gmail.com wrote:
Is ProofreadPage documented anywhere, or just in SVN? I couldn't find
it on
mediawiki.org
(sigh)
If only we had one of those fabulous wiki things set up where anyone could document it...
Rob Church
Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Jim Wilson wrote:
Is ProofreadPage documented anywhere, or just in SVN? I couldn't find it on mediawiki.org
The best I know is http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Help:Side_by_side_image_view_for_proofreading
You are welcome to write something better for meta.wikimedia.org
Some related material is found under http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Books
"Lars Aronsson" lars@aronsson.se wrote in message news:Pine.LNX.4.64.0704200145130.12347@localhost.localdomain...
Jim Wilson wrote:
Is ProofreadPage documented anywhere, or just in SVN? I couldn't find
it on
mediawiki.org
The best I know is
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Help:Side_by_side_image_view_for_proofreading
You are welcome to write something better for meta.wikimedia.org
Just to clarify, all new documentation regarding MediaWiki should be added to mediawiki.org NOT meta.wikimedia.org.
There are still a lot of old pages on meta that are waiting to be transwikid, and these should still be edited on meta (rather than duplicating content) but any new pages should be created at mw.org.
- Mark Clements (HappyDog)
Mark Clements wrote:
"Lars Aronsson" lars@aronsson.se wrote in message news:Pine.LNX.4.64.0704200145130.12347@localhost.localdomain...
Jim Wilson wrote:
Is ProofreadPage documented anywhere, or just in SVN? I couldn't find
it on
mediawiki.org
The best I know is
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Help:Side_by_side_image_view_for_proofreading
You are welcome to write something better for meta.wikimedia.org
Just to clarify, all new documentation regarding MediaWiki should be added to mediawiki.org NOT meta.wikimedia.org.
There are still a lot of old pages on meta that are waiting to be transwikid, and these should still be edited on meta (rather than duplicating content) but any new pages should be created at mw.org.
Someone decided that most of mediawiki.org should be public domain instead of GFDL, thereby making any large scale movement of text from meta impossible.
-- Tim Starling
Just to clarify, all new documentation regarding MediaWiki should be added to mediawiki.org NOT meta.wikimedia.org.
There are still a lot of old pages on meta that are waiting to be transwikid, and these should still be edited on meta (rather than duplicating content) but any new pages should be created at mw.org.
Someone decided that most of mediawiki.org should be public domain instead of GFDL, thereby making any large scale movement of text from meta impossible.
So create gfdl.mediawiki.org, move or copy all the content from mediawiki.org to gfdl.mediawiki.org, and then merge in MediaWiki docs from meta.wikimedia.org.
But if we're going to talk about licenses, could we maybe please consider licensing gfdl.mediawiki.org (and/or MediaWiki docs on meta.wikimedia.org) under the GPL too, and allowing any documentation distributed with MediaWiki to be licensed under the GFDL (as well as the GPL). That way documentation could be freely copied backwards and forwards between the two (something that I suspect is sometimes happening already, but which is probably legally a bit dubious - but, of course, "I Am Not A Lawyer"). That way the code's documentation and all the documentation about the code would be under compatible licenses (which is not currently the case - ref: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GFDL#GPL_incompatible_in_both_directions )
-- All the best, Nick.
"Tim Starling" tstarling@wikimedia.org wrote in message news:f09l81$h9l$1@sea.gmane.org...
Mark Clements wrote:
Just to clarify, all new documentation regarding MediaWiki should be
added
to mediawiki.org NOT meta.wikimedia.org.
There are still a lot of old pages on meta that are waiting to be transwikid, and these should still be edited on meta (rather than duplicating content) but any new pages should be created at mw.org.
Someone decided that most of mediawiki.org should be public domain instead of GFDL, thereby making any large scale movement of text from meta
impossible.
Actually, that statement is completely untrue.
Most of mw.org is GFDL. The only part of mw.org that is PD is the set of help pages that is being built in order to (ultimately) create a downloadable 'help' namespace so that new wiki admins will be able to easily have full user help available on their wiki in their own language without having to laboriously copy and adapt pages from Wikipedia (or wherever) or write them themselves. The equivalent pages on meta cannot be transferred, however all other MW documentation on meta can (and will) be transwikid to mw.org, retaining its GFDL status. This includes information about extensions, DB layout, code structure, development/design docs, release notes, sysadmin manual, developers manual, etc. etc.
Please see [[mw:Project:Copyrights]] for more info.
- Mark Clements (HappyDog)
On 20/04/07, Tim Starling tstarling@wikimedia.org wrote:
Someone decided that most of mediawiki.org should be public domain instead of GFDL, thereby making any large scale movement of text from meta impossible.
To be honest; the licencing is the least of our worries; a lot of the documentation on Meta is, for want of a nicer term, a bit crap; it's out of date, full of thousands of little fixes for individual configurations, or just plain wrong.
If we're going to have documentation on MediaWiki.org, then we might as well have decent documentation.
Rob Church
Lars said:
The best I know is
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Help:Side_by_side_image_view_for_proofreading
Thanks Lars - that's what I needed! (was just curious what it did without having to read the source - google was no help).
Rob said:
To be honest; the licencing is the least of our worries; a lot of the documentation on Meta is, for want of a nicer term, a bit crap; it's out of date, full of thousands of little fixes for individual configu\rations, or just plain wrong.
I agree - the doc on meta could be much improved. Unfortunately, until more is migrated (cleanly or otherwise) to mediawiki.org, meta will still dominate the search results - perpetuating the perception that it's an authoritative source.
I don't have a solution for this short of a massive doc move effort or putting annoyance text on every page asking "Hey there, before you edit consider if this should be on MediaWiki.org instead".
-- Jim
On 4/20/07, Rob Church robchur@gmail.com wrote:
On 20/04/07, Tim Starling tstarling@wikimedia.org wrote:
Someone decided that most of mediawiki.org should be public domain
instead
of GFDL, thereby making any large scale movement of text from meta
impossible.
To be honest; the licencing is the least of our worries; a lot of the documentation on Meta is, for want of a nicer term, a bit crap; it's out of date, full of thousands of little fixes for individual configurations, or just plain wrong.
If we're going to have documentation on MediaWiki.org, then we might as well have decent documentation.
Rob Church
Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
On 20/04/07, Jim Wilson wilson.jim.r@gmail.com wrote:
I don't have a solution for this short of a massive doc move effort or putting annoyance text on every page asking "Hey there, before you edit consider if this should be on MediaWiki.org instead".
Could be just the thing.
- d.
Jim Wilson wrote:
I agree - the doc on meta could be much improved. Unfortunately, until more is migrated (cleanly or otherwise) to mediawiki.org, meta will still dominate the search results - perpetuating the perception that it's an authoritative source.
I wrote one message indicating where the current documentation is, brief and incomplete as it might be. Five other people wrote messages about how everything needs to be moved around and rearranged. Nobody wrote new documentation.
"Lars Aronsson" lars@aronsson.se wrote in message news:Pine.LNX.4.64.0704220520400.7447@localhost.localdomain...
Jim Wilson wrote:
I agree - the doc on meta could be much improved. Unfortunately, until more is migrated (cleanly or otherwise) to mediawiki.org, meta will still dominate the search results - perpetuating the perception that it's an authoritative source.
I wrote one message indicating where the current documentation is, brief and incomplete as it might be. Five other people wrote messages about how everything needs to be moved around and rearranged. Nobody wrote new documentation.
We currently have pretty complete documentation for all config settings, parser hooks and more recently for each table in the DB. The class system is being documented, as is a full list of arguments accepted by index.php. (You will notice that these are largely sections useful to developers...) The category system has recently been overhauled to make things easier to find and I would estimate that our documentation of third-party extensions now exceeds meta's.
There is still a lot of work to be done, particularly on the user-facing docs, but please don't give the impression that nobody is working on it. There are a small group of dedicated people who are putting in a lot of time on this and I think it is unfair to belittle their efforts. It is a slow process, and we welcome anyone who is able to help, but please don't dismiss this project as dormant!
Please look at MediaWiki.org to see where we're up to, and if you see holes please fill 'em!
- Mark Clements (HappyDog)
wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org