NOTE: slightly off topic here. This is more a meta-discussion, a discussion about our discussions. Though the example used herein is MediaWiki.org, the general principals discussed may apply at all the Foundation projects that are on a wiki. -- Peter Blaise says: Thanks for the dialog, but could we be more specific? When writing: ... what do we mean? The reason I ask is because I cannot imagine any other or better way to support MediaWiki software itself than: - to be encyclopedic in scope, and - to be all-inclusive and democratic in participation. In other words, support MediaWiki software with a Wiki, an open-access encyclopedia, dedicated to MediaWiki software. Instead, I find the wiki at http://www.mediawiki.org/ to be missing basic, essential information - not encyclopedic in scope. Instead I find that all of us out here who implement and use the freely available MediaWiki software are NOT welcome and are not encouraged to share our experiences with other MediaWiki implementers and supporters. Is it just overzealous (or overworked?) admins? For example, go to http://www.mediawiki.org/ and search for almost ANY basic wiki word related to MediaWiki software, and you'll get a RED response, meaning there's no page for what you're lookin' for. Try: - smtp - preferences - navigation - search - toolbox - sysop ...and on and on, for almost ANY MediaWiki-dedicated word you see on a MediaWiki screen. The list of missing entries, the lack of encyclopedic support of MediaWiki software on MediaWiki.org is huge! Then, as with any wiki, go ahead and do it yourself. Go ahead and build a page to support that missing word, even a "stub", or starter page, or disambiguation page, to get things going. It's a wiki, after all - edit every page! And then watch. Admins there will delete that page and tell you to keep your hands off the site. OUCH! Then try to dialog on the discussion / talk pages with them, and suggest that you have a need for help with the info you tried to record there. Suggest that there's a whole new wave of MediaWiki implementers out here that are not at all like the initial coders currently managing the site. Suggest that we all can get along, and each have different but non-competitive contributions to offer - "hey, let's build a MediaWiki support encyclopedia wiki" - ... and they'll ban you. So, what then do we think the wikis surrounding the Foundation, especially MediaWiki.org, are for? Peter Blaise responds: Well, if I had "Wiki" in my corporate name, and it's the ONLY product I had to offer, I guess I have to give it a try and show the world that I trust my own product enough to use it myself! "Example isn't just another way to teach. It's the only way." -- attributed to Albert Einstein. So, yes, I'd suggest opening up ALL Foundation wikis, at last on their discussion / talk pages, to anyone interested, and start to follow their own lead of Wikipedia. Further, I suggest enhancing the MediaWiki software to permit moderation preview of "posts" and edits if the installer of the software needs the benefits of that feature. I believe this selectable feature alone would expand MediaWiki software to address the biggest challenges - blocking, banning, and anonymity, and the *fighting* over blocking, banning, and anonymity! Peter Blaise responds: Not in my experience. Hence my chagrin and befuddlement trying very, very hard to be an evangelist for MediaWiki out here in the real world, yet turning around and finding such hardened unwillingness from the Foundation's own wikis to permit us to participate in free and open encyclopedic wikis to support us all. -- Peter Blaise