Talk:Publish:namespace: Difference between revisions
Talk to the tikiwiki people, and to wikidev.net, both of which are doing this.
(no to a distinct Publish Wiki and the reasoning why it's simply not feasible with the technology at our disposal currently) |
(Talk to the tikiwiki people, and to wikidev.net, both of which are doing this.) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
As far as I know there are no [[wiki]]'s out there that provide for dynamic article sharing | As far as I know there are no [[wiki]]'s out there that provide for dynamic article sharing | ||
The main point regarding the situation described above (there is no http://wikiarticlebroker.org , nor any wiki software that currently supports such an setup) we are not going to have a [[Publish Wiki]] we are going to publish as HTML primarily. The manual, redundant workload, having too many wikis to vandalize and to cause incoherence in is something we are simply not going to do. If you develop software for '''version controlling spanning multiple wikis and dynamic content mirroring''' then by all means let's have three wikis, otherwise: NO --[[User:Juxo|Juxo]] 18:36, 27 Aug 2005 (GMT) | :Then you copy the articles when they are published. But you cannot simply let the whole [[Research:]] base be published, that liability is extreme, you simply have no capacity to do research without publishing it. This works for [[Wikipedia]] only because no one cares what they say, but when [[Consumerium buying signal]] is on every [[worn device]], lawsuits will fly. | ||
(so far) I can understand that this is not much of an issue of importance to the [[MediaWiki]] since their main focus is to provide software for the [[Wikipedia]] encyclopedia, which given it's monolithic structure and it's huge article, editor and reader space is not much interesting in setting up schemes, where other wikies would control the content of some [[article]]s and those be only dynamically mirrored to WP. | |||
:Also they deliberately refuse to publish controversial truths. Which is what Consumerium MUST do. So the mediawiki software may ultimately be a big problem here. | |||
:[[getwiki]] has dynamic article sharing and [[XML import]]ing, and [[tikiwiki]] does too - in the next release tikiwiki will supposedly allow [[wikitext standard]] to be used and imported! Making it the obvious choice. Also tikiwiki has a working "[[mobile mode]]", though it's not too functional, it works well with [[HawHaw]]. | |||
Their huge size makes them uninterested in using smaller specialist [[wiki]]s to provide specialist coverage since it seems that they already have lots of specialists in every conceivable field of knowledge (and at least triple amount of people that like to consider themselves to also be the specialists). | |||
:At least. So they are unlikely to solve this problem. | |||
The main point regarding the situation described above (there is no http://wikiarticlebroker.org , nor any wiki software that currently supports such an setup) we are not going to have a [[Publish Wiki]] we are going to publish as HTML primarily. | |||
:OK but we still need a [[Publish:namespace]] even if it is not actually "a wiki". So the scheme described in [[namespace]] stands. The fact that the namespace shows up as HTML and is not editable easily is irrelevant. The [[Consumerium Governance Organization]]'s advisors, directors and lawyers can edit it, and that is enough. | |||
The manual, redundant workload, having too many wikis to vandalize and to cause incoherence in is something we are simply not going to do. If you develop software for '''version controlling spanning multiple wikis and dynamic content mirroring''' then by all means let's have three wikis, otherwise: NO --[[User:Juxo|Juxo]] 18:36, 27 Aug 2005 (GMT) | |||
:There is no potential for [[vandalism]] if the Publish function is very restricted to the trusted people listed. | |||
:Talk to the [[tikiwiki]] people, and to [[wikidev.net]], both of which are doing this. | |||