On 22 May 2015 at 17:12, Kevin Smith <[email protected]> wrote: > Restricted access on mwfoundation is a pretty good argument for not going > there. > This sort of term ('mwfoundation') is part of the problem. There are distinctions between MediaWiki (the generic wiki software), Wikimedia (largest - but not only - MediaWiki developer and user, and also development/site infrastructure host of MediaWiki) and the Wikimedia Foundation (employs most of the main MediaWiki developers). I suppose some people either aren't aware of this, or haven't thought it through, but it's still important. wikimediafoundation.org is referred to as 'foundationwiki' in the configuration. Unfortunately that site is a fishbowl at least partially due to the fact it allows raw HTML.
> I was putting myself in the shoes of a non-foundation mediawiki developer. > Certainly I would care about Cirrus Search, but would I care about maps? > Would I care about the TPG? And, in fact, we have had pushback when naming > our new department pages in mediawiki. Both Editing[1] and Search & > Discovery[2] have been criticized in their Discussion pages. Reading[3] > doesn't have complaints yet, but is newer. That was what triggered my > thought that foundation/Editing makes a lot of sense, where > mediawiki/Editing might not. > As someone who originally came to MediaWiki development (and eventually the Wikimedia Foundation) through administrating a non-Wikimedia wiki, thank you. The complaints about those page titles are valid and I think we should move them to 'Wikimedia <previous title>' names.
_______________________________________________ teampractices mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/teampractices
