You are not logged in.

#26 2006-11-10 09:01:49

onearm
Member
From: Anywhere but here
Registered: 2006-07-06
Posts: 359
Website

Re: Docuwiki vs Mediawiki

Personally I have used both (currently dokuwiki) but I don't think there are so many differences between the two to justify the media>docu migration (or even docu>media).
If there isn't a real need of a feature in docu which media doesn't have, then why migrate?


To get something done, a committee should consist of no more than three persons, two of them absent.
--
My Github

Offline

#27 2006-11-10 12:29:30

foxbunny
Member
From: Serbia
Registered: 2006-10-31
Posts: 759
Website

Re: Docuwiki vs Mediawiki

onearm wrote:

Personally I have used both (currently dokuwiki) but I don't think there are so many differences between the two to justify the media>docu migration (or even docu>media).
If there isn't a real need of a feature in docu which media doesn't have, then why migrate?

Let me ask you all something. Do you know what problems content maintainers are having at this moment? Have you tried to move an entire section to a new one, then rename the new section and move pages again? Does MediaWiki simplify the task?

Offline

#28 2006-11-10 15:40:15

kasa
Member
From: Italy
Registered: 2005-07-21
Posts: 48

Re: Docuwiki vs Mediawiki

dtw wrote:

I think most of the people who voted for dokuwiki aren't adequately knowledgeable about this and have been "lobbied" by previous comments.  I've used dokuwiki and I don't think it is anywhere near as scalable as mediawiki, as Pierre says.  I think people's main issue with the wiki is that it looks crappy at the moment.  I've almost never seen anyone complain vociferously that our wiki is technically inappropriate - just poorly managed and laid out.

Exactly my point. Let's stick to MediaWiki, and start to lay out things better (we can always have a look at gentoo-wiki)

Offline

#29 2006-11-10 17:31:17

foxbunny
Member
From: Serbia
Registered: 2006-10-31
Posts: 759
Website

Re: Docuwiki vs Mediawiki

kasa wrote:
dtw wrote:

I think people's main issue with the wiki is that it looks crappy at the moment. I've almost never seen anyone complain vociferously that our wiki is technically inappropriate - just poorly managed and laid out.

Exactly my point. Let's stick to MediaWiki, and start to lay out things better (we can always have a look at gentoo-wiki)

How about a joke, then. How many people does it take to fix the current layout of the ArchWiki in one day?

Let's see.

there are 703 pages that are probably legitimate content pages

About, say, 700 to 1000 articles to move, give or take a few hundreds. ArchWiki is averaging 6.68 edits a day (which is not the case most of the time). It takes roughly 100 to 150 days to move the wiki, provided that all 6.68 edits are moves. Furthermore, if a single person was to do just 7 edits a day, entire ArchWiki could be restructured in 100 to 150 days. So, if each of you were to move only 7 pages, it would take at most 150 people to move all the pages. If each of you was to move 14 pages, it would take 75 people. If each person was to move 20 pages, it would take 35 people and just one day to move all pages to appropriate places using current move techniques.

If the job was to be done by 16 people, it would take 2 days. For 8 people, it's just 3 days.

Anyway, why can't we do all this? Even though it seems possible to pull off, the ArchWiki doesn't offer anything that would help us find pages that need moving, and comile a list of pages to hand out to volunteers. At least we don't know how. DokuWiki, OTOH, stores pages as files and directories, so we can easily make such lists using conventional techniques.

Let me tell you something, kasa. The main problem of ArchWiki is NOT that it looks the way it looks (it doesn't look too bad either). There are other more pressing problems.

How about you move one section of the obsolete HOWTOs category each day, and then say if the MediaWiki is a good piece of software? It's not too much work, I promise. You may PM me if you're interested. Personally, I grew a bit tired of it at the moment, and will take a few days off the page move project, to deal with some other issues, so you are more than welcome to help.

Offline

#30 2006-11-10 18:25:28

dtw
Forum Fellow
From: UK
Registered: 2004-08-03
Posts: 4,439
Website

Re: Docuwiki vs Mediawiki

Erm...well, you made a rod for your own back then, eh?  Basically what you have said is that what you have decided to do is loads of work and so people should help you do it.  Sorry if I'm not convinced to jump in and roll my sleeves up.

Maybe it's me but I haven't seen a document entitled: "What we need to do to fix the wiki!"  Nor have I seen any requests for volunteers.  What I have seen is loads of poorly concieved forum threads about your indecision.  Is anyone in charge of this process?  Has anyone identified a goal?  Jesus, has anyone even specifically identified the problems?!  Because it looks to me like we're discussing something that is already happening - is this the discussion period or the getting it done period?  Are you planning a big day to do the major move?  Who's currently doing things?  Who has spoken to who about what the other Arch sites have done?

I'm not being critical for the sake of it, just trying to reflect the layman's view of what you are currently doing.  I do commend your enthusiasm, I'd just like to see you succeed!

Offline

#31 2006-11-10 19:27:41

Dusty
Schwag Merchant
From: Medicine Hat, Alberta, Canada
Registered: 2004-01-18
Posts: 5,986
Website

Re: Docuwiki vs Mediawiki

dtw wrote:

Maybe it's me but I haven't seen a document entitled: "What we need to do to fix the wiki!"

There's two:
http://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Priority_Todo
http://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/WikiTodo

The first is what we're working on, the second is things that will need to get to when the first are finished. If you think they're on the wrong track, feel free to edit.

Nor have I seen any requests for volunteers.

Hard to miss that announcement...
http://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?t=26508

Is anyone in charge of this process?

That would be me, rather reluctantly.

Has anyone identified a goal?

http://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Abo … Wiki_goals

Who's currently doing things?

Foxbunny and Cheer appear to be the ones currently actually editing the wiki. I'm the one trying to coordinate.

Who has spoken to who about what the other Arch sites have done?

I've had private conversations with most of the people actively involved.

Foxbunny is a phenomenal wiki editor, he's gone ahead and done the work of a dozen people, he's tried to get input on the task, but you're just knocking him around for it. Personally, I like to see the zeal he's putting into this, and am amazed at how much he has accomplished... granted that I've looked at the things he has accomplished. I'd like to see him succeed as well. One of the things to help with this is to provide the tools that he wants to work with.

I'd much rather not see any more accusations that he's all talk and no action. Here's why: http://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php?tit … &limit=500

If you don't like the wiki discussion going on here on the forum, I suggest you ignore it, since I don't expect you'll be making any contributions. If it bothers people too much to have this discussion here, we can set up a wiki editors mailing list, or start using the wiki itself to coordinate edits.

Dusty

Offline

#32 2006-11-10 20:21:19

dtw
Forum Fellow
From: UK
Registered: 2004-08-03
Posts: 4,439
Website

Re: Docuwiki vs Mediawiki

Thanks for all that, Dusty!  I don't mean to suggest for a second that foxbunny's not putting any work in or anything of the sort and I'm not knocking him but rather knocking his knocking of other peoples comments.  It's just not cricket to ask for opinions and when they are received accuse everyone of not helping enough!

I'd actually come back to delete my whole post but I shall humbly accept your excellent rebuttal and go about my business.

Actually, Dusty, if you could delete my post but secure your excellent summary of the progress to date and answers to my questions I'd be really grateful.

Offline

#33 2006-11-10 20:32:19

foxbunny
Member
From: Serbia
Registered: 2006-10-31
Posts: 759
Website

Re: Docuwiki vs Mediawiki

dtw wrote:

Erm...well, you made a rod for your own back then, eh?

Ah, I am so glad you find that amusing. Anyway, I was going to treat you to some colourful language, but Dusty pretty much summed it up in a more civil way. smile

Offline

#34 2006-11-10 21:04:48

dtw
Forum Fellow
From: UK
Registered: 2004-08-03
Posts: 4,439
Website

Re: Docuwiki vs Mediawiki

foxbunny wrote:
dtw wrote:

Erm...well, you made a rod for your own back then, eh?

Ah, I am so glad you find that amusing. Anyway, I was going to treat you to some colourful language, but Dusty pretty much summed it up in a more civil way. smile

Well, I really don't think it's funny and I understand your frustration.  I apologise for making it more difficult but I don't think you guys have done yourselves any favours yet!

Offline

#35 2006-11-10 22:51:17

foxbunny
Member
From: Serbia
Registered: 2006-10-31
Posts: 759
Website

Re: Docuwiki vs Mediawiki

dtw wrote:

Well, I really don't think it's funny and I understand your frustration.  I apologise for making it more difficult but I don't think you guys have done yourselves any favours yet!

Apology accepted.

Anyway, I think we should jus conclude this topic. Other than monitoring the poll, there is probably nothing more to be said about either DokuWiki or MediaWiki.

Offline

#36 2006-11-10 23:15:22

iphitus
Forum Fellow
From: Melbourne, Australia
Registered: 2004-10-09
Posts: 4,927

Re: Docuwiki vs Mediawiki

woo, huge argumentative thread!

how about we split something off, and identify in one place, all the issues with mediawiki, link to existing threads, and try and deal with this issue more objectively.

Then, if we cannot resolve those issues, and dokuwiki can, then a move would be justified.

James

edit: Post created.  http://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?p=207401#207401

It kinda renders this thread useless -- we can be more objective and focus on the issues, and then if we cant solve those, we'll have more agreement for a wiki move.

If i've missed problems, post and ill add them there.

James

Offline

Board footer

Powered by FluxBB