- The current meta-wiki is dead.
No it is not. Look at the Recent Changes. If you are
missing something
there, start a new page, hope that enough people (able to
speak the
language you choose)are interrested in the topic, and see
what happens.
Maybe announce it on one of the mailing lists.
Yes, and doesn't it mean chaning the policy of meta-wiki? I am the one who advocates it. Meta-wikipedia can be better, of course.
Actually both of I and you are right and wrong. This is the exactly same discussion about some say usenet is dead, some say no usenet has still good stuff and can have.
Saying meta-wikipedia is dead, I don't want to mean dismissing the motivation of meta-wikipedia. I agree with the idea that we need the place.
To make my arguments clear, I advocate proposals below.
1. Let's make discussion about policy in its native language wikipedia. (What if there is no corresponding wikipedia? It would be a problem. I don't know about such a case)
If a discussion takes place in the meta but it is not in English, the problem is the same thing. Putting discussion together really doesn't mean reflecting their voices.
2. Quit sourceforge. Objections?
3. Publishing wiki sourcecode in wiki and make it editable just like wikipedia articles.
I don't know if this works but we can try. Probably the first step is publishing "language.php"s and probably sysop applies them.
Yes, there is a lot of crap. If something really annoys
you, start a
page [[Pages that should be deleted]] and explain it there
or ask on the
talk page for deletion.
The name meta.wikipedia sounds good to me. Where is the
problem?
Because if meta is the place for development and administration, the name like admin, develop should make more sense. Don't you think?
- Practically meta-wikipedia and maing lists segregate
the
majoriy of wikipedians from the decision-making.
So everything should be discussed in the English Wikipedia:-
namespace?
No, no no at all. Discussion about the policy should occur in the native language.
The majority of users just aren't interrested in the
software
developement and administration. Everybody who is can
subscribe to our
lists and/or go to meta.
Probably. If meta is the place only for those who are interested in development and administration, I would like to participate in meta.
On ĵaŭ, 2003-01-30 at 21:20, Takuya Murata wrote:
- Quit sourceforge. Objections?
Not until everything in that bug report list is fixed! :)
We can take the CVS backup tarball and move it elsewhere if desired.
- Publishing wiki sourcecode in wiki and make it editable
just like wikipedia articles.
I don't know if this works but we can try.
Source is fragile enough that I'd be very wary of this. That, and I really do want a better editor than Mozilla when working with code. ;)
Probably the first step is publishing "language.php"s and probably sysop applies them.
The current format of those files (a bunch of arrays and a class definition in a PHP source file!) is horrible, arcane, and very very fragile. (About half the updates I get submitted to me ends up with a missing comma, an extra quotation mark, whatever, and hence syntax error. And that includes the ones I make myself!)
What we need is a human-friendly interface for editing the messages, being able to compare all or selected language versions of each one side-by-side. The ability to incrementally and safely update 99% of this stuff without waiting for a developer's intervention will be a big help for newer language sections being established.
-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
Yes, and doesn't it mean chaning the policy of meta-wiki?
From the MainPage:
"Meta-Wikipedia is a site meant to work alongside the main Wikipedia project. Here Wikipedians can post essays and discussions about Wikipedia-related topics. You can also post about other topics."
Hmm, it seems everything is on topic, including software developement and administration :-)
I guess we don't need dev.wikipedia.org but trashcan.wikipedia.org for things people don't dare to delete completely from wikipedia. Be bolder! ;-)
Kurt
Takuya Murata wrote:
Quit sourceforge. Objections?
Publishing wiki sourcecode in wiki and make it editable
just like wikipedia articles.
These are little bit nervewracking to me. Sourceforge tools, and CVS, and so forth, are standard development tools that have grown up and been tested and refined by social processes for many years now for *exactly* this mission: development of open source software by geographically separated volunteers.
It strikes me as very likely that if we try to "roll our own" by using a wiki to edit code, we are going to end up with something significantly worse, and for no good purpose.
It is true, I guess, that CVS and all the rest provides a barrier to entry for developers. But not much of one, since it's easy to learn and since most developers will already know about it.
Probably. If meta is the place only for those who are interested in development and administration, I would like to participate in meta.
The best place for discussion of development and administration, the technical aspects, is right here on wikitech-l.
--Jimbo
wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org