[Wikimedia-l] [Wikitech-l] open positions at WMF
zhorishna at gmail.com
Wed Mar 20 20:54:15 UTC 2013
On the other hand, how hard could it be to just write an extension to
integrate a wordpress database and interface into a mediawiki? Call it a
new namespace on the mediawiki end, and... uh... horrible things on the
I was going to say that if I had enough spare time I could probably pull
that off, but putting this down in text it now occurs to me how utterly
insane that is, especially considering how hard a time I had just making
my own wordpress and mediawiki installs look the same.
Even so, it definitely could be done, and it'd probably be easier to
maintain and update than making something from scratch. I mean, they're
both php, with somewhat similar structures...
On 20/03/13 18:57, David Gerard wrote:
> On 20 March 2013 02:06, K. Peachey <p858snake at gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 9:20 AM, Jay Walsh <jwalsh at wikimedia.org> wrote:
>>> We're really interested in wiki-fying the blog at some point too, or
>>> at least marrying more of the technologies. I'd love to us to use a
>>> wiki-based system, but that's a bit further down the pipeline. I'd
>>> like to see us incorporate SUL so Wikimedia project usernames could be
>>> used for comments and posting. I think that will be a question of
>>> using our very limited resources, but I'm super interested in that.
>> MediaWiki + LQT (or the likes) for the comments and you are basically
>> there. In addition you have less to worry about in regards to the
>> WordpRess exploits (as pointed out by Daniel) and you open up to a
>> whole new ecocycle of developers we already have.
> Cobbling together blog software is a one-man project; having a
> versatile, well-maintained and mature blog engine with ubiquitous
> third-party support is another matter. You could turn WordPress into
> an encyclopedia CMS too, but it would be well below optimum.
> WordPress has all manner of problems (I am painfully aware of this, I
> have to hit it with a hammer in my day job) but it is basically the
> best available for the job. MediaWiki has all manner of problems (you
> are painfully aware of this, I'm certain) but, similarly, there's
> nothing better for the job.
> It's possible we could do better with something adapted, but not from
> MediaWiki. For one thing, WordPress's visual editor works ...
> - d.
> - d.
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Wikimedia-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
More information about the Wikimedia-l