Re: About the project

Arne Babenhauserheide <arne_bab-S0/[email protected]> Wed, 10 Aug 2016 00:53:37 +0200
Newsgroups	gmane.network.freenet.devel
Message-ID	<[email protected]>
Ian writes:

> On Tue, Aug 9, 2016 at 2:52 PM, Arne Babenhauserheide <arne_bab-S0/[email protected]>
> wrote:
>>
>> I don’t think that’s a fair assessment — Mediawiki syntax is pretty
>> decent and nicely full-featured — and I don’t think that markup matters
>> that much in this. Markdown is nice, but the difference isn’t that big
>> (I used to think different but changed my stance with experience).
>>
>> Transitioning simply is a lot of very boring work, and there are lots of
>> corner cases which don’t work by default.
>
> I acknowledge that it might not be easy, but you acknowledge that we didn't
> even complete the last wiki migration.  Github is easy to use, and its wiki
> syntax is very familiar to people.  I think that will be a better place for
> us to be ultimately.  I really dislike the idea of us running our own web
> servers, we're just begging to be hacked or to hit a scalability wall.
>
> If volunteers are unwilling to do it, then we could pick the most important
> pages and pay someone to migrate them.  People competent in that kind of
> work can be hired quite cheaply.

If we only needed to port a few "most important pages", transitioning
wouldn’t be an issue. But we have a wiki. That’s not some kind of PR
page but a knowledge base with a lot of information about many different
parts of Freenet.

Also Mediawiki syntax is just as familiar to people as Markdown — rather
more so.

I don’t know what is there to acknowledge from my side about not
completing the last transition. I put it up, and it would be strange if
I were to acknowledge my own argument.

To say more clearly why it’s an argument: It still happens from time to
time that information which was in the old wiki is needed but not
available in the new wiki. Every incomplete transition throws away
information our users and potential developers need. If there’s no one
who pledges to transition the whole wiki — and has a history of
delivering on his or her pledges — then a transition to a new wiki is a
recipe for failure. We’d either lose important information or we’d have
two Wikis to maintain.

That’s it. I gave my arguments. I won’t argument this further. We’re
moving in circles and different from the website where I said "not now"
and not "we should not", I won’t start seeing a wiki transition as
useful just because arguments are repeated.

As long as there is no one who pledges to transition the whole wiki and
has a history of delivering on his or her pledges, transitioning the wiki
is a dumb idea.

Best wishes,
Arne
-- 
Unpolitisch sein
heißt politisch sein
ohne es zu merken

_______________________________________________
Devl mailing list
[email protected]
https://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl
signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, 818 B)