Talk:MediaWiki modifications: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 21:17, 6 November 2003

Given that the features you want are mostly in tikiwiki, why not just use that? It would be easier to support a common wikitext standard in that more supported software, than try to make mediawiki do what it doesn't do well.

I'm looking into it. The new version 1.8 or Polaris seems much more responsive then the 1.4 and 1.5 i fooled around with when trying to locate a CMS to do this concept development & research stuff.

It does do valid XHTML which is an advantage over

Yes a huge edge. And it will likely do XForms long before other wikis, for this reason. XML integration is important. Microsoft Internet Explorer is so integrated with XML now, that we can just require that people use it if they want to work on opinion/content, and that will cut the coding very drastically.

Whaddefuck?You want to contirbants be depended on M$ Internet Esplorer. You are not sane you troll. I havent looked into what xforms actually is but from the name i guess it's nothing special that can't be done with cleaver HTML Forms. But hey whaddoiknow. I'll look into the issue.

The linkage visualization (map) thing seems very interesting
It does have group management already, but according to my knowledge adding this to MediaWiki isn't a problem at all.

No, that's wrong. Look at the MediaWiki user base - mostly at Wikipedia. These people do group management very very badly and freezing their bad ideas about it into code will make it worse. For years they have very serious governance problems, there are always big troll fights and "regime change" debates and flame wars, and "pogroms" and "witchhunts" and "purges". Comments on "what's really wrong" get censored by a group that doesn't want to hear it.

They just believe the plurality of contributors will keep the project alive well. the groups they have being:

Anonymous
User
Sysop
Developer

I'll describe how nearly unlimited amount of Groups can be implemented in MediaWiki without any major modifications when I feel up to it. It's not really a problem IMHO.

They just don't know what they're doing, and on MeatballWiki and such you can find people complaining about how stupid the Wikipedia people are about how to do real world group management. They're always the worst example, e.g. of GodKing or just being a libel pit where anyone can lie about anyone else without any consequences. They'll collapse the day some guy with lawyers notices what they have allowed to be said about him. Like go look at the Page History of the article on Mel Gibson!!! And Mel sues, for real... he even sues CHURCHES...

People who organize their own favourite project so stupidly can't be trusted to figure out what "requirements" exist for serious social software! This is a very good reason to get away from MediaWiki and not to trust the people working on it. They are just not politically mature or even legally responsible. A project like Consumerium which is even more of a target can't possibly rely on software created by people who have such a poor idea of group support.

more on this debate MediWiki vs. Other Wiki Implementations later on. Maybe we should commit an article to this issue.Juxo

Yes, but keep in mind that much more than just "a wiki implementation" is required. There's a need for signed and authenticated articles probably, and, maybe even payments processing for donations, or (as I claim) for "betting".

MoinMoinWiki is even more extensible with a GREAT parser and extension system.

This really should be looked at. It's Python, but why not copy the exact architecture of it into PHP or Java, and integrate it into tikiwiki or etc?

@@ Line 5: / Line 5: @@
 ::Yes a huge edge.  And it will likely do XForms long before other wikis, for this reason.  XML integration is important.  Microsoft Internet Explorer is so integrated with XML now, that we can just require that people use it if they want to work on opinion/content, and that will cut the coding very drastically.
+:::Whaddefuck?You want to contirbants be depended on M$ Internet Esplorer. You are not sane you troll. I havent looked into what xforms actually is but from the name i guess it's nothing special that can't be done with cleaver HTML Forms. But hey whaddoiknow. I'll look into the issue.
 *The linkage visualization (map) thing seems very interesting
@@ Line 10: / Line 12: @@
 ::No, that's wrong.  Look at the MediaWiki user base - mostly at Wikipedia.  These people do group management very very badly and freezing their bad ideas about it into code will make it worse.  For years they have very serious governance problems, there are always big troll fights and "regime change" debates and flame wars, and "pogroms" and "witchhunts" and "purges".  Comments on "what's really wrong" get censored by a group that doesn't want to hear it.
+:::They just believe the plurality of contributors will keep the project alive well. the groups they have being:
+:::*Anonymous
+:::*User
+:::*Sysop
+:::*Developer
+:::I'll describe how nearly unlimited amount of Groups can be implemented in MediaWiki without any major modifications when I feel up to it. It's not really a problem IMHO.
 ::They just don't know what they're doing, and on MeatballWiki and such you can find people complaining about how stupid the Wikipedia people are about how to do real world group management.  They're always the worst example, e.g. of GodKing or just being a libel pit where anyone can lie about anyone else without any consequences.  They'll collapse the day some guy with lawyers notices what they have allowed to be said about him.  Like go look at the Page History of the article on Mel Gibson!!!  And Mel sues, for real... he even sues CHURCHES...