I updated that page. - because MediaWiki is now at version 1.5.3, and - has email notification built-in (even when this is still disabled on the major project sites). T.
Thomas Gries wrote:
I updated that page.
- because MediaWiki is now at version 1.5.3, and
- has email notification built-in (even when this is still disabled on
the major project sites). T.
Which page ? :o)
On 12/22/05, Ashar Voultoiz hashar@altern.org wrote:
Thomas Gries wrote:
I updated that page.
Which page ? :o)
Guessing from the subject line, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_wiki_software.
Angela.
Thomas Gries wrote:
I updated that page.
- because MediaWiki is now at version 1.5.3, and
- has email notification built-in (even when this is still disabled on
the major project sites). T.
Also, could someone more in the know than I look at MediaWiki's entry for 'Web-server required'? It currently states 'Apache or IIS with PHP', which implies that it only works with those two servers, which is far from the truth. I personally am running MW on lighttpd, and I know the upload server is as well, and I know there are at least a few others MW runs perfectly fine on, but there must have been some reason to list that there that I'm not aware of.
Thanks, [[:en:User:Bbatsell]]
On 12/22/05, Brock Batsell wikipedia@theskeptik.com wrote:
Thomas Gries wrote:
I updated that page.
- because MediaWiki is now at version 1.5.3, and
- has email notification built-in (even when this is still disabled on
the major project sites). T.
Also, could someone more in the know than I look at MediaWiki's entry for 'Web-server required'? It currently states 'Apache or IIS with PHP', which implies that it only works with those two servers, which is far from the truth. I personally am running MW on lighttpd, and I know the upload server is as well, and I know there are at least a few others MW runs perfectly fine on, but there must have been some reason to list that there that I'm not aware of.
I've found the Wikipedia pages on software to often be full of factual inaccuracies, misunderstandings or being guilty of treating their subjects unequally.
For instance at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_wiki_software it's stated that MW offers URL & word blacklisting, it only does so through a MediaWiki extension, but I think to maintain any kind of consistancy in such a listing you should only list things in the standard distribution. However even that would be unfair, because different software packages might have different ways of being distributed, some might prefer a very minimalist standard installation offering modules for nonessential functionality while others might distribute a big monolithic application, in that case the latter application would be listed as much more feature-complete which would not be the case in practice.
Speaking of the standard distribution Tom added information in the "WYSIWYG page editing" field that doesn't apply to MediaWiki at all, but his fork of it, that should probably be removed.
On 12/23/05, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason avarab@gmail.com wrote:
On 12/22/05, Brock Batsell wikipedia@theskeptik.com wrote:
Thomas Gries wrote:
I updated that page.
- because MediaWiki is now at version 1.5.3, and
- has email notification built-in (even when this is still disabled on
the major project sites). T.
Also, could someone more in the know than I look at MediaWiki's entry for 'Web-server required'? It currently states 'Apache or IIS with PHP', which implies that it only works with those two servers, which is far from the truth. I personally am running MW on lighttpd, and I know the upload server is as well, and I know there are at least a few others MW runs perfectly fine on, but there must have been some reason to list that there that I'm not aware of.
I've found the Wikipedia pages on software to often be full of factual inaccuracies, misunderstandings or being guilty of treating their subjects unequally.
To reply to myself there's one other very common error, licenses, for example the page on MediaWiki lists its license as "GPL", that's very ambiguous and in this case just plain wrong, most of MediaWiki is under the GPL-2 *or later*, we also use a Memcached libarary that we bundle that's under the LGPL-2 or later.
This also very common with regards to "the BSD license", which is an oxymoron, because there are more than one.
wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org