5

Proposal: Wikis

A word wiki/Wiki can be used for myriad of concepts and web apps. Would this site be a catch-all thing for all of these? But I'm pretty sure that no one wants questions on wikipearl the edible food wrapper. So where do we draw the line?

Some of these are already covered within existing Q&A sites [listed in square brackets]. Are we going to start having them migrated? I'm curious about what other guys have in mind.

Parts of these would surely have overlapping aspects, but can result in vastly different communities.

  1. a wiki software/website/system, in general: a category of web application allowing collaborative work [existing questions found in Stackoverflow, Superuser, Webapps, Webmasters]
  2. the concepts embodied by wiki systems, such as "mass collaboration" or "dispersed knowledge"
  3. installation/usage/management of self-hosted MediaWiki, PukiWiki, or any other specific wiki software [Stackoverflow, Superuser, Webmasters]
  4. technical questions on usage/management of Wikipedia and its sister projects: operated by Wikimedia Foundation using MediaWiki software [Stackoverflow, Webapps]
  5. technical questions on usage of other wikis already hosted and available as a web site, such as Ganfyd or those hosted at Wikia
  6. more project-oriented questions (so to say) rather than technical, such as questions on making good encyclopedic resources or maintaining a healthy community
  7. wikitext: the markup syntax for editing wikis, used by above softwares (can vary from one software to another) [Stackoverflow]
  8. websites that started out as a wiki but are no longer, such as WikiLeaks
  9. non-software items, such as wikipearl

(I'm pretty sure the last two won't fit in)

If we're going to have a site, my personal opinion is that we definitely need a clearly-defined scope and clarifications prominently displayed.

6

Thank you for your question, and I would like to first apologize for my inactivity over the last few months. I have been busy with managing wiki-related disputes and affairs that I did not have ample time to take a look at this proposal.

Judging from the example question that were posted in the proposal, it looks positive that we have not really deviated from the original intent of actually creating the site. Yes, there are many arguments that there are various overlaps with existing StackExchange websites like Web Applications, StackOverflow and even SuperUser, but the community evolved around wikis is quite enormous and at times questions related to wiki do not really belong to either Q&A websites.

Questions that meet any of these criteria are considered to be on-topic:

  1. Using a wiki (how to edit, how to do this, how to do that on the wiki, etc)
  2. Installing a wiki (how to fix a problem, how to fix an extension, etc)
  3. Expanding and creating wiki software (what PHP class to use when writing an extension, etc)
  4. Content-level problems for ONLY Wikipedia (there is bound to be a large number of users coming to ask about Wikipedia, which is popular enough to deserve a place, questions about other wiki sites should be asked on their own portals instead as the userbase to answer such questions is not enough)
  5. Using bots for wikis (how to do something with a bot, etc)

Questions that meet any of these criteria are considered to be off-topic:

  1. Content-level problems for sites other than Wikipedia
  2. Support for softwares that are not mainly wiki-based (i.e. Drupal and other CMS)
  3. Other non-wiki related questions

Generally, the idea of this Q&A website revolves around the user, sysadmin and developer of a wiki software, and any question about wikis that fall in these three categories are considered to be on-topic. Case-by-case on/off topic queries can also be discussed accordingly on the Meta site when this proposal is approved.

  • 1
    Thanks! That's mostly what I thought, looking at current questions. Someone might ask why we pick out content-level for Wikipedia only, but your reasoning says it all. And for many people out there, Wikipedia is the wiki, despite WP:DAW. – Asa Aug 18 '13 at 18:02
  • 3
    I think content-level problems on Wikipedia should be off-topic as well. – Kudu Nov 23 '13 at 17:49
  • Why so? It is great to have this Q&A site to answer the questions that newbie Wikipedians might have about it. Asking questions on Wikipedia itself isn't really going to be a friendly experience for them. – Hydra Nov 24 '13 at 14:17
  • +1, but I agree with @Kudo, assuming that by "content-level problem" you mean things like "This statement on Wikipedia is wrong". That will be very different from installing a wiki, etc. The scope of wikipedia is large, and reviewing specific content would require a broad scope of experts in different fields, not wiki software. – Abhimanyu Pallavi Sudhir Dec 7 '13 at 14:18
  • Would editing CSS/JavaScript files like MediaWiki:Monobook.css be on-topic? . Another thing that strikes me is, what about questions that ask on help in customising a monobook skin to look like vector (on Wikia, it uses an old version of MediaWiki, and therefore has no Vector skin.). – Abhimanyu Pallavi Sudhir Dec 7 '13 at 14:20
  • 1
    @DIMension10 Of course "This statement on Wikipedia is wrong" type of questions are all off-topic. Also, customising the skin using MediaWiki:<skin>.css is on-topic as part of system administration. – Hydra Dec 9 '13 at 0:18

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .