00:08 <Cale>
We used to have a really good wiki which was very productive and
which many people used to communicate, back before it got switched
to MediaWiki
and then it immediately became dysfunctional
00:09 <bernalex>
mediawiki is a gigantic pita for everyone. I wish we could do
something about it. but IMO the haskell.org development process is
not clear and transparent enough.
00:09 <joehillen>
yeah, the mediawiki should probably be taken down. It lacks proper
maintainers, which are essential for having a good wiki. The
current wiki lacks a sense of ownership
00:10 <mgsloan>
Yeah, perhaps it should be frozen with a message at the top
00:10 <ggVGc>
I think everyone seems to essentialyl have given up on it
unfoertunately
maybe a new wiki needs to be started
00:10 <EvanR>
it wasnt as easy as wikipedia but
00:10 <merijn>
bernalex: There isn't really one. If someone is willing to invest
the time and nows a better wiki solution I'm sure it'd be welcome
00:10 <ggVGc>
and knowledge manually transcribed from the old to the new
in a better format
00:11 <joehillen>
I've not super thrilled with the current infrastructure team
00:11 <Cale>
We need a wiki which people will feel comfortable with *having
conversations* in
As soon as you use MediaWiki, people stop doing that
00:11 <ggVGc>
why was it switched?
00:11 <Cale>
for no really good reason except that it's disallowed on wikipedia
00:11 <hpc>
what about mediawiki discourages conversation?
ah
00:11 <EvanR>
talk pages
00:12 <Cale>
Yeah, there's separate talk pages which nobody ever sees
00:12 <mizu_no_oto_work>
Perhaps something based on c2 would encourage discussion?
00:12 <Cale>
I don't want talk pages, I want inline conversations which
gradually get edited into the article.
00:12 <ggVGc>
I Like the c2.com format a lot
00:13 <bernalex>
hpc: which feels needlessly arduous, considering places like
wikipedia aren't that annoying. but then again, I think the
haskell.org people never groked how to fight spam properly.
00:13 <Cale>
I'd be much happier with people emulating c2 than emulating
wikipedia -- we don't really need another wikipedia
00:13 <bernalex>
merijn: that's not good enough.
00:13 <Cale>
But it would be nice to have a place to have semi-static discussions
that gradually get organised into a useful resource
00:14 <bernalex>
merijn: it leads to your polling of (busy) people for information
until you can't be bothered any longer. I've been through this with
haskell infrastructure before.
00:14 <Cale>
The problem is that the existing wiki is full of *articles* rather
than discussion
neongreen
commented
8 years ago