Differences between revisions 16 and 17
Revision 16 as of 2005-01-19 08:41:17
Size: 6119
Editor: anonymous
Revision 17 as of 2005-01-19 14:19:28
Size: 6358
Editor: anonymous
Deletions are marked like this. Additions are marked like this.
Line 72: Line 72:


I agree that MediaWiki appears to be a fantastic codebase for running WikiPedia, but I'm not convinced that it's right for DebianWiki. Perhaps a seperate page for people to ConvinceMichaelMediaWikiRocks would be appropriate? --mdi


The DebianWiki engine has changed from ["ZWiki"] to ["Kwiki"] (see the ?UpgradeNotes).

But I suggest change to [http://wikipedia.sourceforge.net MediaWiki]. With MediaWiki we can manage more easily categories, pages in different languages (the interwiki links) and so on.

  • I have never used MediaWiki, and so it's hard for me to say one way or another. If/when the wiki becomes official, and is on Debian hardware, it might be time for a discussion about wiki software from whoever will be maintaining it, but for now, Kwiki it is.

TWiki for wiki.debian.net

?HereOn 2004-02-16: ["TWiki"], http://www.twiki.org/ , was discussed at SVLUG, http://svlug.org/meetings.shtml , on January 7th, 2004. From what little I know & have done with wikis (a couple pages on wiki.debian.net, and updates to ["DebianKDE"]), twiki seems to be a much more powerful system than the sw for wiki.debian.net . I'm wondering if anyone (such as perhaps MichaelIvey ?DebianWikiMaster) knows enough about wikis in general to think that it would be a substantial improvement to upgrade wiki.debian.net to twiki. Thoughts, anyone?

  • I dislike ["TWiki"] a lot. It's way too complex. I'm pretty happy with Kwiki. -- MichaelIvey

  • MediaWiki is a great wiki software package, (used by wikipedia - http://en.wikipedia.org) Here are some advantages that I can think of off the top of my head

    • Ability to edit individual headings
    • Ability to link directly to headings
    • Interface to upload files (pictures, screenshots, etc)
    • Watch pages
    • diffs
    • Better wiki syntax

Christopher Huhn 23/09/2004: I apt-got ["TWiki"] installed in our intranet more than a year ago and after putting in a lot of content I do not want to miss its features - especially for editing. For the admin it may be complex but not for the user .

I did not have time install the newest release but it seems to be another big step forward.

A lot of its features like

  • multiple categories,
  • topic based access control,
  • revision control,
  • RSS syndication,
  • email notification,
  • session management,
  • attachments
  • code beautification plugin(s)

etc. would fit in perfect here.

Another advantage of Wikipedia's syntax over Kwiki's is simply that it's more widely known.

In [http://www.onlamp.com/pub/a/onlamp/2004/11/04/which_wiki.html this Wiki engines comparison] the only advantage of Kwiki is for the admin (easy installation...). I think it would be pretty ridicule for Debian to use a Wiki because it's easy to install instead of for its user-friendlyness.

I recommend change to MediaWiki (or ["TWiki"]?). I also know Wiki engine switch is no piece of cake, due to both ?WikiSyntax and users' habits. The sooner the better... --chealer

Firstly, thanks for your input. I appreciate your desire to help the Wiki be better. The most important thing to keep in mind for this discussion is that this is not an official Debian project, but is instead a MichaelIvey and anyone else who helps project. I have made multiple offers to the ?DebianAdmin team to move it to a Debian server, or even keep it on my server but make it under ?DebianAdmin control, so it could have a d.o address instead of d.n. So far, no one has taken me up on it.

We originally used ["ZWiki"], because it's what I knew. My server couldn't handle Zope all the time, and so we switched to Kwiki, because I'm a ?PerlHacker and could work with it.

As long as it's my call, we will not use ["TWiki"]. I think it is way too far away from ?WikiNature. It may be a great CMS, but it's not a very good Wiki in my opinion. Of course, I still prefer ?WardsWiki over all of them. Simplicity is good, no?

Because of the multiple requests for MediaWiki, and because I would like to see the Wiki grow, and because I HATE SPAMMERS ... I have contacted {dd:evan} who has ["ITPd"] MediaWiki. If he gets a DebianPackage of MediaWiki ready, I will install it on my server and play with it. I will even give user account access to (limited) interested parties who would like to try to make DebianWiki run well with MediaWiki.

In short, I'm listening. I like Kwiki, and think for simple office Wikis it is still one of the best choices, regardless of what the ORA article says. However, I am willing to accept that maybe it isn't best for DebianWiki. But if we're moving, I need help. I need people to say, "Hey! I'll HelpMoveDebianWikiToMediaWiki if we decide that's a good thing to do!"

Alternatively, and this isn't a ?TakeMyTinkertoysAndGoHome at all, although it may sound that way: I am always willing to turn over wiki.d.n and the current database to anyone with the time, energy and motivation to run the Wiki. That person could use whatever engine they want...but if it's ["TWiki"], I won't participate. Did I mention I hate ["TWiki"]? --MichaelIvey

PS: Does MediaWiki support shortcuts like dd:evan and google:search string?

I put a question mark for ["TWiki"] because I have no experience with it and don't really know what it is. If you say it approaches the CMS then I agree it's not an alternative. We're looking for wiki.d.o at best, not d.o.

About the MediaWiki Debian packaging status, evan [["ITPd"] phptal http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=288854] (MediaWiki dependency) and [http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=276057 MediaWiki 1.3.5] while Ashar Voultoiz separately packaged 1.4beta3. Both are MediaWiki devs and started communicating (last message on the ITP is 20041219). MediaWiki is currently 1.4beta5 and #mediawiki told me this week (20050119) was a reasonable ETA for 1.4.0. Hence we could expect MediaWiki in Sid pretty soon. Would be nice to comment on the ITP if a move is decided.

Apparently there's no conversion script from Kwiki to MediaWiki... --chealer

PS: No idea what you mean...until I edited the page :) I've never seen such functionality on any Wiki for now. ...but after an hour of Wikimedia reading ;) check http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Help:Template#Parameters That does it.

I agree that MediaWiki appears to be a fantastic codebase for running ?WikiPedia, but I'm not convinced that it's right for DebianWiki. Perhaps a seperate page for people to ?ConvinceMichaelMediaWikiRocks would be appropriate? --mdi