Sharebro community wiki?

[Sanjeev Satheesh]

Hey guys,

I strongly suggest we set up a wiki where we keep our discussions on topics
distinct. Long chains of inline replies are going to be trouble as a point
of reference.
We should list independent subprojects and mark where help is needed. And a
separate design Docs page. If there is general agreement on this, I can set
this up and then link it to sharebro.org.

Thanks,
Sanjeev

[Emmanuel Pire]

wiki.sharebro.org ?

wikimedia ?

--
The Sharebro Google Group: for http://sharebro.org and related development
http://groups.google.com/group/sharebro for archives and options

--
Emmanuel Pire
Web development
http://lipsumarium.com/

[Juan Luis Chulilla]

I strongly suggest to use dokuwiki instead of the more known mediawiki. It is more intended for organizing content

------

Dr. Juan Luis Chulilla Cano
Director, Online and Offline, S.L.
Telf.: 91 5233401
www.onlineandoffline.net

-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.
I don't think a greater genius has walked the earth. Of the 3 great composers Mozart tells us what it's like to be human, Beethoven tells us what it's like to be Beethoven and Bach tells us what it's like to be the universe.

Douglas Adams

[Emmanuel Pire]

i don't see much difference with mediawiki actually. sell it to me!

[Alex Chaffee]

I think deciding on a wiki technology is a great way to avoid
discussing technical issues around sharing feed items.

And once we have one, it'll be a great place to look for outdated or
incorrect information. And then not be able to find it.

Anyway if we want a wiki, we've already got one:

https://github.com/alexch/sharebro/wiki

Go crazy. Write some words. Format them in bold and even in italic!
Someone may even read some of them some day.

- A

P.S. I'm down on wikis these days since I just spent a month of my
spare time scraping dozens of pages of outdated, incorrect, redundant,
repetitive, inconsistent, and confusing instructions created over the
past 2 years and turning them into this:
http://installfest.railsbridge.org

P.P.S. I do think wikis can be useful but only with consistent
curation by dedicated humans, like Wikipedia has.

[Juan Luis Chulilla]

Ok :)

first, it is not based on a DB. Possibly dokuwiki wouldn't suit the needings of a huge site with zillions of unique visitors such as wikipedia, but it is much more safe since each page is a text file. Actually, mediawiki is an amazing piece of software intended for building and maintaing wikipedia, not for organizing documentation

second, doku is intended for organizing documentation. For instance, it has not a discussion functionality (although there is a plugin for that), but you have a true hierarchical structure with its namespaces. Besides, its simplicity and the simplicity of its syntax make writing or converting easier.

security is quite important too. ACL implementation is very robust and grainable, so you can control very preciselly who does what.

Maybe in this case dokuwiki on a stick is not important, but it works like a charm.

If you are a vimmer, you can edit directly dokuwiki with the awesome docuvimki plugin. Besides, there are hundreds of plugins for a LOT of different needings, but I'm not sure if they are needed for SB. What is really important is that you can implement a dokuwiki in your server effortlessly in a minute and you can start to work.

I own a small ethnographic research company. My first step for every project I start is to uncompress the last dokuwiki installation file on my server, direct a subdomain to it and start writing. 

[Emmanuel Pire]

the only flaw in mediawiki to me is the lack of hierarchical structure.

dokuwiki wins over mediawiki on this project for me.

didn't test the github wiki yet.