[opensource] Website Planning Wiki
Alexander J. Lingo
lingo.13 at osu.edu
Sat Mar 25 13:18:23 EST 2006
On 3/25/06, Paul Betts <bettsp at cse.ohio-state.edu> wrote:
> On Fri, 2006-03-24 at 19:37 -0500, Alexander J. Lingo wrote:
> > I've been investigating MediaWiki as the backend to our website, even
> > documenting its HTML structure to modify it through CSS.
I can't tell what you're viewing, but the way to modify the output of
> the CSS on the site is through the skins/<current skin, probably
> monobook>/main.css file. I think it's pretty cut-and-dried. Are you
> viewing the final HTML output?
I was viewing the final output - It was my first method of examination, and
I was hoping to perhaps just throw in a custom CSS file or two, so that if
MediaWiki were to be upgraded, we wouldn't have to work too hard to merge
differences between the old and new versions.
> The point of using some sort of backend is to save time and be
> > simple-to-edit.
> > I figured this was a good option, as both FreeGeek Columbus and
> > Haskell use it as the basis of their sites.
> Yes, I use it as well, it's pretty handy.
It should be noticed, a couple of hours after I wrote this e-mail, FreeGeek
Columbus started transitioning from
MicroWiki <http://freegeekcolumbus.org/microwiki/> themselves.
> As also can be seen, this can also be problematic.
> Unfortunately, you have that problem with any Wiki.
Yes, but MediaWiki is a target of many spam-bots, which is the problem
FreeGeek was having. It got so bad, that FreeGeek had to completely turn off
editing to curb the problem.
> Speaking to Scott Merrill of Freekgeek Columbus, both ikiwiki and
> > MicroWiki are give as good wiki-based options.
> > I've been experimenting with MicroWiki all day today, and to me, it
> > seems a much better option that MediaWiki.
> MediaWiki is pretty well supported though, at least we know that
> there'll be updates/fixes/what-have-you for MediaWiki for awhile, as
> well as a community of people to go to for help.
While that's true, I believe that MicroWiki is still the better option.
We're talking about the difference between a SUV and a bicycle.
MediaWiki, as the SUV, can do many, many things. We don't need 90% of those
functions. It can take us a long way and carry a lot of people, but we're
not trying to catalogue all knowledge or manage tens of thousands of users.
MicroWiki, as the bicycle, does one thing simply and easily: Take us from
Point A to Point B. It allows us to quickly and easily build a website on
top of it, with little evidence it is there.
A wiki (MediaWiki's MonoBook theme) looks like a wiki, not like a
professional website. A lot of work would go into lessening the dominating
appearance of the SUV. MicroWiki's only hint that the site is running on a
wiki? "Edit this page with MicroWiki".
We don't need history pages, user pages, automatic TOC's, history-diffs, or
to slice, dice, peel, or make julienne fries.
While there may not be the level of community and developer support for
MicroWiki, think about which is more user-serviceable. MediaWiki weighs in
at over 6 MiB, while MicroWiki is _only_ 134 KiB. It would be comparatively
easier for someone knowledgeable with PHP to dig into MicroWiki to make
changes and repairs if needed.
> It's just so clean and simple to use and edit. The experimental
> > installation is at http://www.freepgs.com/aev/osuoss/microwiki/
> What's not simple about MediaWiki? I think its template system is
> particularly useful.
What would the actual person putting a page into MediaWiki need to know?
Wiki syntax. Think about what some people needed to
just have a
simple discussion <http://www.freepgs.com/aev/osuoss/planningwiki/> in
MediaWiki. Plus HTML.
What does MicroWiki require the user to know?
1. [[Internal Links]]
2. [[http://www.google.com External Links]]
MicroWiki also has a template and include system. The main
all separate templates put into the page. There can also be different
> Unless anyone has any objections, I'd love to begin work on the site
> > using MicroWiki.
> The only objection I have to MicroWiki is that it's unclear where it
> stops and Wordpress begins, it seems to be an amalgam of the two; what's
> the deal with that?
Actually, while MicroWiki can be used with WordPress, there is no WordPress
installation used on the test site.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Opensource