As far as I know there are no wiki's out there that provide for dynamic article sharing
- 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 articles 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 importing, 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 wikis 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 --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.