I too have thought that MediaWiki isn't the best solution for our needs. Unfortunately, as Michael points out, I don't think the best solution exists (yet?). Of the many poor solutions out there, MediaWiki remains the best in that: 1) We already have it installed and populated, so it is the status quo. 2) It is widely used, so potential contributors are often familiar with editing already.
However, I do think it is worth investigation into the use of Habari for a wiki/documentation. I'd be happy to work on such a plugin, but I think we should weigh the benefits against the costs to developer time. On Jul 24, 2009, at 3:16 PM, Michael C. Harris wrote: > > 2009/7/24 Scott Merrill <[email protected]>: >> >> On Fri, Jul 24, 2009 at 1:16 AM, Michael C. Harris<[email protected] >> > wrote: >>> I've done a little more investigation into providing structure for a >>> MediaWiki instance and concluded that a URL-based structure with >>> everything in the main namespace, as outlined in our Wiki >>> Structure[1] >>> document and as we're already using for things like classes, is >>> fighting against how MW was designed to work. >> >> Before going too much further, can I ask that we start at question 0? >> >> 0. Is MediaWiki the best option for us? >> >> I know it's popular, and offers some tremendous functionality. My >> question is: are we likely to leverage all that functionality? Or is >> MW overkill for our specific purposes? >> >> I don't have a positive recommendation for any other tool at this >> time. I could be flippant and say "Let's use Habari for our >> documentation!" and that may be worth exploring; but I'd like to >> re-evaluate whether MW is the best tool for the job, or whether we're >> trying to push a square peg through a round hole just because that's >> what everyone else does (and because we already have it installed and >> somewhat populated)? > > That was my first question too, and my answer is, wiki software > sucks[1]. In investigating the best way to proceed I looked at a > number of other software options and concluded that nothing was better > enough for us to change away from MW. In the absence of an attractive > alternative, in the short term I believe what I have outlined is the > best way forward. Of course I would be _extremely_ happy for someone > to prove me wrong (but please read that post before suggesting > alternatives). > > > [1] http://twofishcreative.com/michael/blog/2009/03/10/what-i-want-from-a-wiki > > -- > Michael C. Harris, School of CS&IT, RMIT University > http://twofishcreative.com/michael/blog > IRC: michaeltwofish #habari > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/habari-dev -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
