On Mon, Jan 4, 2010 at 10:17 AM, Ian Clarke <ian at locut.us> wrote: > On Mon, Jan 4, 2010 at 8:57 AM, Evan Daniel <evanbd at gmail.com> wrote: >> >> You know, you could have brought this up when we were discussing >> moving the wiki. > > No I couldn't, because at the time I didn't know that their wiki hosting was > so badly designed because I hadn't personally tried it.
You could have tried it at the time. SF allows users (not just projects) to set up copies of any of their hosted apps. It's quite easy; it literally took longer for me to find my old login and password info than to set up a copy of MediaWiki. > >> >> ?Or you could suggest an alternative Mediawiki host; > > I could, except I'm not familiar with Mediawiki nor the hosting options for > it - I took people's word for it that it would be an improvement on what we > have now. >From a usability standpoint, it's a *vast* improvement. The big features it adds, for me, are viable spam management, categories, templates, and markup that most of our potential authors already know. > >> >> you shouldn't have much trouble moving the wiki, since SF provides >> convenient backups / exports. ?I don't think anyone is particularly >> committed to SF, we were just tired of standing around bitching >> instead of actually working on it. ?If you want to wait around for the >> perfect solution to the wiki hosting problem to appear, don't let >> those of us working on writing stuff for it get in your way. > > Can't we discuss the fact that the proposed new wiki appears to be unusable, > without you getting mad at me? ?Its not my fault that SF's usability sucks. Sure. For starters, it does not appear unusable to me. It's a little slow, and there are some odd default permissions that I'm not yet sure how to correct, but I still find it to be an improvement. There are two independent issues, here: converting to MediaWiki, and hosting the wiki. I got tired of waiting on the latter to start on the former. I'm serious about moving the wiki: it should be easy, and I would have no objections. > >> >> You don't particularly sound like you want help solving this problem, >> but I might as well ask: did you actually succeed at logging in to the >> SF site? > > I'm not really concerned about myself, I'm more concerned about that fact > that the new wiki appears unviewable (since I assume I'm not the only person > having problems with it). > As it stands, an unviewable wiki is far worse than what we already have at > wiki.freenetproject.org. > Tell me I'm wrong, but don't get mad at me simply for making an observation. I'm not telling you you're wrong; I'm sure you really did have trouble logging in. A simple observation would have been something along the lines of "My OpenID login doesn't work; this makes the wiki unviewable for me, which is obviously bad." Your post was not that. And so far, this is the first I've heard about your problem. Can you log in to SF at all, or is it just a wiki problem? Have you followed the steps bback suggested? What I got mad about was that you were complaining about a solution to a problem (the current wiki being badly organized, spammed, and basically unmaintained), without offering anything that could remotely be construed as a constructive suggestion. IMHO the wiki migration is not the first case where Freenet work has stalled waiting for a consensus that will not appear about some decision. Attacking proposed solutions, especially ones people are already working on, is a way to make that happen more often, not less. Frequently, an imperfect decision is better than no decision, and in many cases (including this one), fixing that decision later is easy enough and doesn't even waste the interim work. I view the wiki migration process in the context of WP:BOLD ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Be_bold ); rather than spending a lot of time figuring out how to best solve the problem, infinity0 and I simply started solving it. Evan Daniel
