I hope this mail won't get more nerve.
Generally, give higher exposure to the open source side of
Wikipedia.
Most people who come to the Wikipedia project simply don't
do so from a
software development perspective, so we need to highlight
more that this
side exists as well.
I agree. If you remember, isn't it good idea to rename wikipedia software *or* set up a independent wiki for it?
We need to make the Wikipedia-code Wikipedia-independent.
That is exactly what I meant before (but not all though). If wikipedia software becomes more independent, it makes more sense to seprate development process from meta-wikipedia. But it is not necessary to prohibit discussion in meta- wikipedia about the development. I am imagining of UseMod.
(I bet no one advocates all of my ideas are wrong because I am ignorant, which I admit)
The fact that with OpenFacts there will soon be another
Wikipedia
specifically for open source documentation should also help
in
attracting new developers.
What are OpenFacts?
Hi Taku,
the only thing that annoyed me was the "code in wiki" idea. Everything else is debatable.
I agree. If you remember, isn't it good idea to rename wikipedia software *or* set up a independent wiki for it?
Rename - yeah, makes sense. When I suggested Wikipedia in some contexts, people were frightened by the encyclopedia-notion, which would not be appropriate for their project. (For example, the Open Source Applications Foundation decided to use the inferior TWiki software for this reason, among others.) But please, no endless name debate on wikitech. This is exactly what meta is for.
One advantage of the Wikipedia name is that it might make people more willing to participate. "Oh, the Wikipedia wiki? Sure, I'd love to help with that." But I don't know how strong that argument is. I'm not opposed to a name change.
Independent wiki - I don't really see the point. Meta works, we just need to define it properly (for the record, I absolutely encourage you to clean it up, and I don't think it should be used for personal essays, sorry, Anthere). Using subpages on Meta might also help for organization.
If you can't convince people to clean up Meta, ask me for help ;-)
We need to make the Wikipedia-code Wikipedia-independent.
That is exactly what I meant before (but not all though). If wikipedia software becomes more independent, it makes more sense to seprate development process from meta-wikipedia.
That's only a valid argument if you move it really away, say, to another server. hacker.wikipedia.org would *still* be associated with Wikipedia. We probably do not want such an almost complete separation, though -- people who work on the Wikipedia software will hopefully also be encouraged to work on Wikipedia, instead of cloning it.
(I bet no one advocates all of my ideas are wrong because I am ignorant, which I admit)
Become a Wikipedia hacker! Free yourself from ignorance! :-)
What are OpenFacts?
Wikipedia-like wiki specifically for open source documentation maintenance. Will probably be officially launched next week. There will also be Wikipedia-based wikis for two other projects I'm working on.
Regards,
Erik
it up, and I don't think it should be used for personal essays, sorry, Anthere). Using subpages on Meta might also help for organization.
Ah ? Well, I disagree. Of course permanent deletions of personal essays can only occur after a consensus is reached about that, no ?
__________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com
Erik Moeller wrote:
Rename - yeah, makes sense. When I suggested Wikipedia in some contexts, people were frightened by the encyclopedia-notion, which would not be appropriate for their project.
We should name it "Phase III, Version 1.0". Because that's what we call it anyway, Phase III.
--Jimbo
wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org