The Official TWiT Wiki:Community bulletin board/Archive 1

From The Official TWiT Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search

A few pointers

Hi everyone! I thought I would give a few pointers.

  1. On the talk pages, if you start your comment with an asterisk (*) it will create a bullet. Multiple asterisks will indent the bullet. If you don't want a bullet, you can use colons (:), and you can use a pound sign (#) to create a numbered list.
  2. As far as protecting the Main Page, I would suggest that we leave it alone until we get a significant amount of vandalism. It's really easy to protect pages and revert the changes (admins can use rollback and regular users can just to a normal undo)

That's what I've thought of for now. I'll probably think of some more things later. -- Imperator3733 17:14, 9 January 2009 (PST)

Name?

  • I'm not crazy about TWiTpedia. Any suggestions for a better name? --Leolaporte 18:38, 9 January 2009 (PST)
  • TWikiT! *shrug* I tried. --Listrophy 18:51, 9 January 2009 (PST)
  • I think keeping it simple with wiki.twit.tv "The Official TWiT Wiki" would be good. Easy for people to remember the URL too. I could make a banner for the front page as well. --The Frogman 19:38, 9 January 2009 (PST)
  • Encyclopaedia TWiTannica? I think "The Official TWiT Wiki" is better. Reechard 19:42, 9 January 2009 (PST)
  • I am a fan of just calling it the TWiT Wiki but if we must change it what about The TWiki? Theta1594 21:19, 9 January 2009 (PST)
  • How about All Things TWiT? Concerning the other suggestions so far, I like The Official or just TWiT Wiki, but TWiki is cool too. Ccheath 06:57, 10 January 2009 (PST)
  • I'm going with the Official TWiT Wiki - it really is the clearest. Thanks! --Leolaporte 09:20, 10 January 2009 (PST)
  • I think you should have gone with "WikiWiki TWiT TWiT." Say it out loud. It's fun. =) --Listrophy 10:05, 10 January 2009 (PST)
  • TWiT World Book. --morguepie 5:05, 10 January 2009 (EST)

How about TWiTionary? (RBuelow)


Some Administration Best Practices

Having administered a couple MediaWiki installations, let me suggest the following idea for managing extensions: In your LocalSettings.php file, have exactly one line (plus perhaps a comment) for each extension:

# This extension installs a bunch of weird characters below the editing box for easy insertion
require_once('LocalSettings/CharInsert.twit.php')

Then, create a folder at the base of the wiki installation called LocalSettings and create a new file there called CharInsert.twit.php. In this file, put:

<?php

# Author's website:
# --author's website, like: http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:CharInsert

require_once("$IP/extensions/CharInsert/CharInsert.php")
?>

Do this for each extension. It serves two purposes:

  1. It vastly cleans up your LocalSettings.php file.
  2. It lets you turn off or on extensions with a single # sign.

This example was simple, but some other extensions need much more configuration. For example, our MediaWiki installation uses the LdapAuthenticationPlugin, which needs 22 extra lines of code on top of the typical require statement... and that doesn't include our comments! --Listrophy 11:47, 10 January 2009 (PST)

License Issues

Some content is being copied from Wikipedia and being used verbatim here. A good example is the The Tech Guy page. Wikipedia uses the GNU Free Documentation License for its text whereas TWiT uses the Creative Commons BY-NC-SA license. The problem is that these licenses don't seem to be compatible. The GFDL clearly states that derivative works are to be licensed under the same license. It also states that no other stipulations can be added to the license for verbatim works like we have here. We are also creating templates based on those found at Wikipedia, but I'm uncertain about the licensing of those. They may be in the public domain. The licensing of the content on this wiki is of course up to Leo, but I believe that as of now it's a bad idea to use content from Wikipedia. --Steveh 20:13, 10 January 2009 (PST)

  • I deleted the wikipedia stuff for now. We should try to get some clarification on this for the future. I don't understand this license stuff very well. From what I read the material wasn't copyrighted, but all that lawyer speak is hard to follow. I guess it is better safe than sorry. --The Frogman 21:37, 10 January 2009 (PST)
According to http://wiki.creativecommons.org/Interoperability_between_Creative_Commons_licenses_and_GFDL ... "No NC (Non-commercial) license can ever be compatible with GFDL." I'd consider that a relatively reliable authority. --RandalSchwartz 09:06, 12 January 2009 (PST)
  • Well there we are. It seems we should avoid using content from Wikipedia. --Steveh 13:17, 12 January 2009 (PST)

Just so everyone knows, there is currently a proposal to have Wikipedia move over to a CC-BY-SA license. Would this change anything? -- Imperator3733 14:29, 13 January 2009 (PST)

This would make the documentation templates that you copied over from Wikipedia compatible. Though I don't know why we need a documentation template so similar to Wikipedia's anyway? --Taylor Karras 14:46, 13 January 2009 (PST)
    • What's weird is that Mediawiki defaults to a CC license. I use CC -BY-NC-SA for all TWiT content. We could do BY-SA for the wiki, I guess, although that doesn't solve the copying from wikipedia problem. I'd suggest linking to wikipedia content for now. I do think our templates should look like wikipedia's just for ease of use. If we really think it's a good idea we could use the GFDL. Leo 23:07, 14 January 2009 (PST)

Article Needs Improving

Is there really a need to put this at the top of every page? They're all brand new, so of course they need improving, nobody needs a banner to show them that. Andrew 11:16, 11 January 2009 (PST)

Yes, until they're complete. That way they're properly categorized and maintainers can easily find pages that need to be fixed up and/or expanded. --Steveh 13:00, 11 January 2009 (PST)
Well then perhaps there should be a guideline to what every page needs to do before the banner comes off? Like if it ticks these boxes it is fully fledged and does not need the banner. Andrew 15:08, 11 January 2009 (PST)
I'm fine with categorizing the articles. But having on nearly every article one or two banners on the top of the page saying this article is not good, gives a bad impression to new visitors. So maybe we can skip the banners for some time and only use categories? Hoffmann 18:48, 12 January 2009 (PST)
The templates at the top should convey a message that a problem has been diagnosed and is in the process of being rectified. If they weren't there regular users would still get a bad impression because a lot of the articles are incredibly short one-liners and poorly formatted. I believe that the templates should remain until the articles are up to a reasonable standard quality. Not using the templates is fine for regular maintainers, but for people who only contribute when they clearly see a problem with the content I believe they're absolutely necessary. --Steveh 16:31, 13 January 2009 (PST)