(Remember I installed both the Eastercon Drupal and Mediawiki for YotT. I am not tied to either one)
I have suggested moving to MediaWiki - but several people think it *didnt* work well for YotT. However if it keeps Chris happy.... :-)
It also requires a certain number of people to be authorized to edit pages. MediaWiki is not geared up for being "public read only, specific users can edit". It can do it - but not well.
Certain people disliked the YotT wiki for four reasons:
* Anonymous edits were allowed so it got constantly spammed (until after the con when we locked it down to registered users and it hasn't been spammed since). * The programme grid was huge and difficult to edit. I don't think it would have been any easier to edit it using a different table syntax. Reformatting it into multiple smaller tables might have helped. * The programme item pages used templates. These actually made it easier to create a new item in the correct format once you worked out how to add and fill in the template. * It wasn't obvious how to create a new page (just search for the non-existent page title then click on 'create this page'). This could have been explained on the front page.
There was also a perception that because it was possible for any member to edit the site, you had to edit it yourself instead of working through a webmaster or other admin.
Some wikis will let you break complex pages up into simpler pages that are then pulled into, say, rows or columns of a larger table. Not much help when you need to work with the Big PictureTM!, but possibly useful if you're dealing with {all the items in this room} or {all the items on before lunch on saturday}.
But re: templates and page creation - tell me about it, as they say. We *still* have people who think it's easier to email a change of content than try playing with scary markup themselves....
Reply
I have suggested moving to MediaWiki - but several people think it *didnt* work well for YotT. However if it keeps Chris happy.... :-)
It also requires a certain number of people to be authorized to edit pages. MediaWiki is not geared up for being "public read only, specific users can edit". It can do it - but not well.
Reply
* Anonymous edits were allowed so it got constantly spammed (until after the con when we locked it down to registered users and it hasn't been spammed since).
* The programme grid was huge and difficult to edit. I don't think it would have been any easier to edit it using a different table syntax. Reformatting it into multiple smaller tables might have helped.
* The programme item pages used templates. These actually made it easier to create a new item in the correct format once you worked out how to add and fill in the template.
* It wasn't obvious how to create a new page (just search for the non-existent page title then click on 'create this page'). This could have been explained on the front page.
There was also a perception that because it was possible for any member to edit the site, you had to edit it yourself instead of working through a webmaster or other admin.
Reply
So maybe moving to MediaWiki is the right thing to do.
Reply
But re: templates and page creation - tell me about it, as they say. We *still* have people who think it's easier to email a change of content than try playing with scary markup themselves....
Reply
Leave a comment