Jump to: content, navigation, search

Navigation menu

Communication channels analysis: Difference between revisions

→‎foundation wiki: wiki is not openly editable
(more detail accross the whole document)
(→‎foundation wiki: wiki is not openly editable)
 
=== foundation wiki ===
http://www.osmfoundation.org/ ''We should talk with Grant aboutwas thisasked (heto set up the wiki)''. As discussed, MediaWiki was probably as a simple CMS choice for the foundation site, but. lookingLooking so similar to wiki.openstreetmap.org creates confusion. We don't want to confusingly duplicate content of the main wiki, but we also don't want to aim to grow content in the same way. We don't really want a wiki-style sprawling knowledgebase on the foundation site. It's more of a CMS situation, than a knowledgebase situation. Maybe we should move a way from using a wiki (e.g. drupal or wordpress instead) Where wiki style collaboration is useful, we could use the main wiki. Alternatively if we stick with MediaWiki, we should at least make the wiki look very different from the main wiki (skin). Perhaps think about non-open permissions.
 
The wiki is not openly editable. Editing access is granted to people on the foundation and working groups. The limited access can mean that updates are not as forthcoming as they could be, but it does mean we stand more of a chance of keeping the content tidy focussed. We can also have a positive spin on everything. Content doesn't need to drift towards a neutral point of view so much.
 
Maybe we should move a way from using a wiki (e.g. drupal or wordpress instead) Where wiki style collaboration is useful, we could use the main wiki. Alternatively if we stick with MediaWiki, we should at least make the wiki look very different from the main wiki (skin). Perhaps think about non-open permissions.