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(a)gmail.com> wrote:

"Lars Aronsson" <lars(a)aronsson.se> wrote in message news:Pine.LNX.4.64.0704200145130.12347@localhost.localdomain... it on http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Help:Side_by_side_image_view_for_proofreading 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)

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.

On 20/04/07, Tim Starling <tstarling(a)wikimedia.org> wrote: 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is the least of our worries; a lot of the documentation on Meta is, for want of a nicer term, a bit crap; it's out of date, full of thousands of little fixes for individual configurations, or just plain wrong.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

On 20/04/07, Jim Wilson <wilson.jim.r(a)gmail.com> wrote: Could be just the thing. - d.

"Lars Aronsson" <lars(a)aronsson.se> wrote in message news:Pine.LNX.4.64.0704220520400.7447@localhost.localdomain... 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)