> the mistaken belief that technology can substitute for social change
Well, simply having a “talk” page for each wiki page (with a big link at the top) would let people have conversations about those pages without cluttering them up. And having an actual, complete revision history would help someone figure out what happened to a completely messed-up page. But EmacsWiki doesn’t seem to have those things. Its technology is too primitive to reasonably support – much less encourage – a workable society.
> the mistaken belief that moderation can be commanded
As Wikipedia has amply demonstrated, there are plenty of obsessive-compulsive people online. If anything, moderation needs to be limited.
– SeanO 2012-03-24 03:44 UTC
Other than that - I’m with SeanO on this one. And with 8500 pages or so - it easier to save the worthwhile articles than to revisit all the material.
– Bozhidar 2012-03-24 05:48 UTC
AlexSchroeder Sean, if the lack of a complete revision history is what held you back from reworking and reorganizing, then I guess you’re right. I am keeping all the logs, but discarding all the older revisions after two weeks and never felt the lack.
The addition of Talk pages was discussed a while ago—it was one of the items on the suggestions page—but at the time we had two votes in favor and two votes against them. Nobody else seemed to care. I’ll be surprised if their mere existence improves the pages. But I guess we’ll see, now. Good luck to you all!
After a quick look at the site I’ll suggest that you should add licensing terms as quickly as possible. As it stands, you cannot copy anything from Emacs Wiki. That would require a copyleft license.
– AlexSchroeder 2012-03-24 07:16 UTC
SeanO Alex – I’d say my laziness and your sneering condescension were greater obstacles. But if I don’t check in for more than 2 weeks (quite likely, given how little time I have for Emacs these days), I’d still like to be able to see what happened if something I cared about (e.g. the Perl page or my homepage) went bad. (How much, to an order of magnitude Euros and hours’ work, would it cost you to keep a complete revision log, by the way?)
I guess the Talk page issue came and went in a revision window when I didn’t have time to hang out here.
I’m also tired of your pseudo-legal threats toward the content of the wiki (which is under GPL2, not GFDL).
(This comment is protected by the GFDL, I guess. Whatever that means.)
– SeanO 2012-03-24 08:14 UTC
AlexSchroeder I wonder where you felt my sneering condescension. Perhaps in my replies to people I felt were trying to tell me what to do in my free time and with my money? I also don’t think I threatened you in any way. Perhaps you missed the problems I had with changes to the Emacs Wiki license in its early days. I was trying to help you or Bozhidar make the same mistake.
The logs are there for all to see if you follow the links. Here’s the the SiteMap history, for example. Keeping all the old revisions would cost me nothing – it’s simply a setting. I prefer it this way. As I said, I think keeping the old revisions provides no benefit and adds a number of small drawbacks such as needing administrators to permanently hide particular revisions that contain material deemed problematic from a legal perspective. As it stands, I can undo these edits and with time, they are gone. Another issue is that I like the idea of a right to be forgotten. The original C2 wiki kept no revisions at all. I think that the only reason old revisions need to be kept at all is peer review and anti-spam and anti-vandalism measures. For those tasks, a small time window is sufficient. After all, wiki pages are not code. We don’t need to look through the history of a page to find when bugs were introduced and by whom.
– AlexSchroeder 2012-03-24 10:30 UTC
P.S.: EmacsWiki:WikiDownload links to a CVS repository of the source files hosted on the wiki, a subversion repo with daily snapshots of all the wiki pages, and a new, up to date git repo of all the pages with full history. I guess in a way my preference regarding the right to be forgotten is already moot since deleted stuff can be pulled out of the archives. This just hides deleted info from casual visitors.
PhilHudson Excellent riposte, Alex. We who criticize the wiki should pay attention. I would like to thank you for this consistently useful resource and your dedication. I certainly don’t detect any sneering on your part. Having said that, I do think there are a lot of real and fixable problems with the wiki, the worst being the hosting of code with neither “proper” SCM nor automatic notification of changes. Once you’ve used LaunchPad and (especially) github, this is just not tolerable. So I’m going to see what if anything I can do to help any new project.
– PhilHudson 2012-03-24 11:29 UTC
AlexSchroeder I see the problem! I think people like me don’t feel bad about keeping code that consists of a single file on the wiki because we usually don’t think of these files as requiring maintenance. After all, that’s how gnu.emacs.sources used to work. The wiki has the benefit of providing a stable URL, but the process remains essentially the same: post & forget, possibly have discussions with other people via email, followed by another post & forget.
To me, creating a separate project on Savannah or Source Forge is an unacceptable overhead for files like EmacsWiki:rcirc-color.el or EmacsWiki:rcirc-controls.el. But if somebody else felt like taking those files, putting them up on some other site – excellent! At first, color-theme.el was hosted on Emacs Wiki. Eventually somebody took it, moved it elsewhere, and started a real project. Great!
I still think that the Emacs Wiki can act as a low barrier-to-entry incubator for all those small little files that need a place on the web. I don’t read gnu.emacs.sources anymore, and I don’t think many other people do. At the same time, I think there still are a lot of people without their own web pages out there. They can’t post code on Facebook or Google+ and I imagine uploading code to Wordpress and Blogspot sites is also unwieldy. For all those people, the Emacs Wiki offers an alternative. It’s a bit better than gnu.emacs.sources and Lisppaste but a far cry from a software forge.
If people would take popular code from the wiki to a forge, repackage it as a real project, that would be great.
– AlexSchroeder 2012-03-24 12:11 UTC
Phil, I just remembered EmacsWiki:Git repository. Maybe that helps? I know Jonas is very enthusiastic about it and has been pestering me for weeks when I dragged my feet. I’m sure he’d appreciate help or some nice words.
– AlexSchroeder 2012-03-24 19:07 UTC
“the mistaken belief that technology can substitute for social change”
Github was an example of technology that brought about a change in social behaviour.
– Phil Jackson 2012-03-26 12:18 UTC
– Edward O'Connor 2012-03-26 23:35 UTC
AlexSchroeder Thanks, hober!
Phil, regarding Github: I’m not much of a github user. I see that git and github bring a lot of relevant new features to the table. Compared with other version control systems they facilitate forking on a grand scale. Do you feel that using Mediawiki introduces a similar set of new features that will revolutionize how wiki pages are edited and organized? I don’t see it, which is why I cannot imagine that Xah’s and Bozhidar’s idea of switching to Mediawiki will in fact help solve the quality issues they have with Emacs Wiki.
– AlexSchroeder 2012-03-28 15:32 UTC
– AlexSchroeder 2013-01-22 11:57 UTC
Define external redirect: LaunchPad