I see the mediawiki has an automatic contents page after all, he
http://wiki.diyfaq.org.uk/index.php?...ecial:Allpages
Just click special pages, all.

It would be good if this link were added to the list of links on the
left I think.

Having looked at an example docuwiki, and compared docu with media at
wikimatrix, I'm not seing any advantage in docuwiki. Looks like we've
got what we need already really.


NT

wrote:
I see the mediawiki has an automatic contents page after all, he
http://wiki.diyfaq.org.uk/index.php?...ecial:Allpages
Just click special pages, all.

It would be good if this link were added to the list of links on the
left I think.

Having looked at an example docuwiki, and compared docu with media at
wikimatrix, I'm not seing any advantage in docuwiki. Looks like we've
got what we need already really.

Hmm, I think that could be a whole lot better - there's no nesting of
categories for a start.

Bear with me a little while. I meant to get the docuwiki install all
done yesterday, but have been pretty busy. I'll try to get it done
today. It does have some neat features.


--
Grunff

wrote:
I see the mediawiki has an automatic contents page after all, he
http://wiki.diyfaq.org.uk/index.php?...ecial:Allpages
Just click special pages, all.

It would be good if this link were added to the list of links on the
left I think.

Having looked at an example docuwiki, and compared docu with media at
wikimatrix, I'm not seing any advantage in docuwiki. Looks like we've
got what we need already really.


Ok, as promised, the DokuWiki installation is up and running, you can
access it he

http://www.diyfaq.org.uk/wiki/

I have added a number of plugins for improved usability. I think all of
you who have tried out MediaWiki will agree that the usability of this
app is vastly superior.

To avoid cluttering uk.d-i-y with wiki related discussion that may or
may not be of interest to people, may I suggest we keep the wiki
discussion on the discussion tab of the main page?

Look forward to seeing what everyone thinks.


--
Grunff

Grunff wrote:
wrote:

I see the mediawiki has an automatic contents page after all, he
http://wiki.diyfaq.org.uk/index.php?...ecial:Allpages
Just click special pages, all.

It would be good if this link were added to the list of links on the
left I think.

Having looked at an example docuwiki, and compared docu with media at
wikimatrix, I'm not seing any advantage in docuwiki. Looks like we've
got what we need already really.

Ok, as promised, the DokuWiki installation is up and running, you can
access it he

http://www.diyfaq.org.uk/wiki/

I have added a number of plugins for improved usability. I think all of
you who have tried out MediaWiki will agree that the usability of this
app is vastly superior.

To avoid cluttering uk.d-i-y with wiki related discussion that may or
may not be of interest to people, may I suggest we keep the wiki
discussion on the discussion tab of the main page?

Look forward to seeing what everyone thinks.

Tbh I think we've got what we need already. From what I've read doku
seemed a less developed and slightly less user friendly wiki, but maybe
you could give us some clues on whats better about it.


NT

wrote:

Tbh I think we've got what we need already. From what I've read doku
seemed a less developed and slightly less user friendly wiki, but maybe
you could give us some clues on whats better about it.

Well, I think from a technical POV, from a data organisation
perspective, they both suck hugely. I find it hard to understand why
information is being stored and organised in this semi-random fashion.

Having said that, I will explain why I think DW is better than MW, at
least for the purposes of an FAQ or similar.

The first reason is categorisation - DW uses 'namespaces', which are
effectively article categories. These are more intuitive and easier to
create than the 'categories' you can create in MW.

Second, navigation. There are quite a few plugins available for DW which
deal with navigation. I've installed one, in two different formats,
which displays the entire content as a tree - you can see this in the
left hand menu and the contents section of the main page.

Third, access control. It provides a greater level of access control,
which is easier to admin than MW. By this I mean who has what edit
rights over which articles/sections.

They are both up there, and I will leave them both there until everyone
who is interested has had a look and commented. At the end of this
period, I'll remove one and stick with one.



--
Grunff

Grunff wrote:
wrote:

Tbh I think we've got what we need already. From what I've read doku
seemed a less developed and slightly less user friendly wiki, but maybe
you could give us some clues on whats better about it.

Well, I think from a technical POV, from a data organisation
perspective, they both suck hugely. I find it hard to understand why
information is being stored and organised in this semi-random fashion.

Having said that, I will explain why I think DW is better than MW, at
least for the purposes of an FAQ or similar.

The first reason is categorisation - DW uses 'namespaces', which are
effectively article categories. These are more intuitive and easier to
create than the 'categories' you can create in MW.

Second, navigation. There are quite a few plugins available for DW which
deal with navigation. I've installed one, in two different formats,
which displays the entire content as a tree - you can see this in the
left hand menu and the contents section of the main page.

Third, access control. It provides a greater level of access control,
which is easier to admin than MW. By this I mean who has what edit
rights over which articles/sections.

They are both up there, and I will leave them both there until everyone
who is interested has had a look and commented. At the end of this
period, I'll remove one and stick with one.

Its worth saying there are downsides to doku too. One is the way it
handles what are questionably described as edit collisions (or
something similar). Having played with mediawiki, several timss it
thought one edit had temporally wrapped round another, when in fact it
just wasnt keeping track of editing well enough. Doku's response to
this is to lock any further editing. So if we had doku, many of the
pages there now would have been stopped in their tracks due simply to
poor edit tracking.

If people look at ikimatrix and compare media with doku, side by side,
medi has almost all the plus points. If wikimatrix is anything to go
by, the doku mostly has plugins for functions mediawiki has built in
already.

I can see the plus points in a contents with tree, but I can see issues
with it too. Mediawiki is able to provide category listings too, as
well as a list all pages function, and a plus is that afaic see one can
structure the article tree after writing, and structure it pretty well
any way you want, move articles from one category to another, have them
in multiple categories and so on, IOW its both eaiser and more
flexible.

FWLIW I also found doku less intuitive and more difficult to use. This
will put some off contributing imho.

At the end of that day tho, I'm sure either will work and do the job.


NT

wrote:

If people look at ikimatrix and compare media with doku, side by side,
medi has almost all the plus points. If wikimatrix is anything to go
by, the doku mostly has plugins for functions mediawiki has built in
already.

I'm not sure that the wikimatrix is all that useful. For instance, take
categories. According to the matrix, MW has them already built in, while
DW has them as an option/plugin. While this is true, the end result is
that the categorisation in DW is far superior to that in MW.

Slightly concerned at the lack of opinion on the matter - we seem to be
the only two discussing it!


--
Grunff

Grunff wrote:
wrote:

If people look at ikimatrix and compare media with doku, side by side,
medi has almost all the plus points. If wikimatrix is anything to go
by, the doku mostly has plugins for functions mediawiki has built in
already.

I'm not sure that the wikimatrix is all that useful. For instance, take
categories. According to the matrix, MW has them already built in, while
DW has them as an option/plugin. While this is true, the end result is
that the categorisation in DW is far superior to that in MW.

Slightly concerned at the lack of opinion on the matter - we seem to be
the only two discussing it!

I guess others arent worried, which is ok.

I'll vote for the flexibility and easier use of the mediawiki, but
either works!


NT

On Tue, 19 Dec 2006 14:48:42 +0000, Grunff wrote:

Ok, as promised, the DokuWiki installation is up and running, you can
access it he

http://www.diyfaq.org.uk/wiki/

I'm following up on a comment in the docuwiki talk pages but I
think it needs raising here in the group, and that's ownership of
articles and copyright. I think ownership of articles by individuals
defeats the object of a wiki. By all means let's have a new and different
version of the DIY FAQ with articles individually owned if that's what
authors of articles in the current FAQ want, but if we're going to have a
wiki please can we agree that articles in the wiki are communally authored
and owned under some sort of license such as Creative Commons.

IANAL so I don't know the pros and cons of CC versus other licenses:
what I'm trying to say is best summed up by the boilerplate on the DIY
wiki edit pages "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly,
then don't submit it here."

I think it follows that we should obtain permission of authors of articles
in the current FAQ to copy their articles into a wiki, in the same way
we should obtain permission to use any other material that's not already
copyrighted in a CC-type way.

[Sorry: I edited the Subject: line again Phil :-)]

wrote:
Slightly concerned at the lack of opinion on the matter - we seem to be
the only two discussing it!

I guess others arent worried, which is ok.

I'll vote for the flexibility and easier use of the mediawiki, but
either works!


Chaps,

This is a worthwhile project and thanks for the effort in persuing this
idea this far. I'm keen on the mediawiki implementation - the collapsing
tree thing in docuwiki is a step backwards from the idea of wiki
navigation which is historically done thorough the linked keywords. We
can have a top level page of 'categories', and successive pages can be
linked (and crosslinked for relevant overlap) where necessary.

You can't handle crosslinks in a treeview, the programming of the thing
is client dependant (think mobile phone), and for usability - the search
metaphor works better.

Apple and Microsoft on their new operating systems are coming around to
that now.

e.g. Want information on a 'tap washer', type 'washer' - Don't have the
user do 'plumbing' (click) 'sinks' (click) 'accessories' (click) 'Taps'
(click) 'washers' - also a nightmare for someone to keep this structure
in check!

I would suggest that the FAQ should stay where it is, users posts stay
where they can be accessed (on google) and NOT copied to the wiki, and
the wiki used to refer to these sources via links.

In time items entered on the wiki can be voted for inclusion to the
frozen html FAQ and then placed there by the FAQ webmaster.

The content and editing on the Wiki should be open to all, like
Wikipedia. Users will clean up stuff that abUsers place there, or the
stuff can be rolled back for serious vandalisms.


--
Adrian C

John Stumbles wrote:

I'm following up on a comment in the docuwiki talk pages but I
think it needs raising here in the group, and that's ownership of
articles and copyright. I think ownership of articles by individuals
defeats the object of a wiki. By all means let's have a new and different
version of the DIY FAQ with articles individually owned if that's what
authors of articles in the current FAQ want, but if we're going to have a
wiki please can we agree that articles in the wiki are communally authored
and owned under some sort of license such as Creative Commons.

IANAL so I don't know the pros and cons of CC versus other licenses:
what I'm trying to say is best summed up by the boilerplate on the DIY
wiki edit pages "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly,
then don't submit it here."

I think it follows that we should obtain permission of authors of articles
in the current FAQ to copy their articles into a wiki, in the same way
we should obtain permission to use any other material that's not already
copyrighted in a CC-type way.

[Sorry: I edited the Subject: line again Phil :-)]

I guess we need a copyright policy. Would there be a problem with 'by
submitting writing to ukdiywiki you agree it may be edited and/or
copied'?

NT

On 21 Dec 2006 01:07:32 -0800, wrote:

|John Stumbles wrote:
|
| I'm following up on a comment in the docuwiki talk pages but I
| think it needs raising here in the group, and that's ownership of
| articles and copyright. I think ownership of articles by individuals
| defeats the object of a wiki. By all means let's have a new and different
| version of the DIY FAQ with articles individually owned if that's what
| authors of articles in the current FAQ want, but if we're going to have a
| wiki please can we agree that articles in the wiki are communally authored
| and owned under some sort of license such as Creative Commons.
|
| IANAL so I don't know the pros and cons of CC versus other licenses:
| what I'm trying to say is best summed up by the boilerplate on the DIY
| wiki edit pages "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly,
| then don't submit it here."
|
| I think it follows that we should obtain permission of authors of articles
| in the current FAQ to copy their articles into a wiki, in the same way
| we should obtain permission to use any other material that's not already
| copyrighted in a CC-type way.
|
| [Sorry: I edited the Subject: line again Phil :-)]
|
|I guess we need a copyright policy. Would there be a problem with 'by
|submitting writing to ukdiywiki you agree it may be edited and/or
|copied'?

Also IMO these things are best placed in the Public Domain.
The downside is that anybody can use the information anywhere.
--
Dave Fawthrop dave hyphenologist co uk Google Groups is IME the *worst*
method of accessing usenet. GG subscribers would be well advised get a
newsreader, say Agent, and a newsserver, say news.individual.net. These
will allow them: to see only *new* posts, a killfile, and other goodies.

In article om,
writes:

I guess we need a copyright policy. Would there be a problem with 'by
submitting writing to ukdiywiki you agree it may be edited and/or
copied'?

This is a horribly complex area which we would never get right
if we try inventing it ourselves, with the potential for Grunff
and others to be sued when it goes wrong. Fortunately, several
others (e.g. Wikipedia) have already thought through these issues,
so the easiest and safest approach is probably to adopt one of
their schemes lock stock and barrel. (That doesn't completely
remove the chance of being sued though, as it's impossible to
check that all the material submitted is not subject to an
incompatible copyright.)

--
Andrew Gabriel

Andrew Gabriel wrote:

Fortunately, several
others (e.g. Wikipedia) have already thought through these issues,
so the easiest and safest approach is probably to adopt one of
their schemes lock stock and barrel. (That doesn't completely
remove the chance of being sued though, as it's impossible to
check that all the material submitted is not subject to an
incompatible copyright.)

Another reason I was less keen on an open wiki :-)

If we do decide to stick with a wiki (and for me this is still a big
IF), one requirement will be for several wiki admins. These people would
get copied any emails received as complaints regarding copyright issues,
and would have the responsibility of removing any offending material
immediately, and ensuring that any complaints are dealt with promptly.


--
Grunff

Grunff wrote:
Andrew Gabriel wrote:

Fortunately, several
others (e.g. Wikipedia) have already thought through these issues,
so the easiest and safest approach is probably to adopt one of
their schemes lock stock and barrel. (That doesn't completely
remove the chance of being sued though, as it's impossible to
check that all the material submitted is not subject to an
incompatible copyright.)

This isnt how it normally works in practice. Suing costs a lot of
money, with little chance of recovering any significant damages in our
case. Hence copyright owners normally send a warning out requiring
removal of material, and only even consider followup if this isn't
done.

Another reason I was less keen on an open wiki :-)

If we do decide to stick with a wiki (and for me this is still a big
IF), one requirement will be for several wiki admins. These people would
get copied any emails received as complaints regarding copyright issues,
and would have the responsibility of removing any offending material
immediately, and ensuring that any complaints are dealt with promptly.

If you're really worried you can put a couple of phrases from each new
post into google and see if anything comes up. Normally wiki/forum/etc
owners have a stock notice about copyright violations saying they're
only too glad to remove any offending material if its ever pointed out.

And fwiw it may be a good idea to remove any such material. There is or
was some already on there, and while some individuals may not be
concerned about any possible comeback, wiki administration imho would
be wise to stick to the policy and make this clear by removing any and
all such material from the get go. I never post copyright material. If
you want to refer to it, one can just link to it.


NT

wrote:

I'll vote for the flexibility and easier use of the mediawiki, but
either works!

Ok, since no one seems to like Dokuwiki, and it appears that someone's
pasted in some content which has broken it, I will remove it.

I will leave MediaWiki up for now, since it seems most people are in
favour. Just to remind those interested, it can be accessed he

http://wiki.diyfaq.org.uk/


--
Grunff

Owain wrote:

It weren't me, but that does sound as though testing has highlighted
some shortcomings in the resilience of dokuwiki.

Exactly - doesn't really matter who it was or what they did - it just
shouldn't be possible to break it by editing articles. I could spend
time investigating what broke and why, but tbh I just can't be bothered,
especially since more people seem to favour MediaWiki.


I suppose with wikipedia using mediawiki it will have a fairly
comprehensive ongoing support.

Yes, there is that.


--
Grunff

On Fri, 22 Dec 2006 14:14:12 +0000, Grunff wrote:

Owain wrote:

It weren't me, but that does sound as though testing has highlighted
some shortcomings in the resilience of dokuwiki.

Exactly - doesn't really matter who it was or what they did - it just
shouldn't be possible to break it by editing articles. I could spend
time investigating what broke and why, but tbh I just can't be bothered,
especially since more people seem to favour MediaWiki.

I wasn't hiding, I actually shouted about it on the main talk page