Lars said:
The best I know is
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Help:Side_by_side_image_view_for_proofreading
Thanks Lars - that's what I needed! (was just curious what it did without
having to read the source - google was no help).
Rob said:
To be honest; the licencing is the least of our
worries; a lot of the
documentation on Meta is, for want of a nicer term, a bit crap; it's
out of date, full of thousands of little fixes for individual
configu\rations, or just plain wrong.
I agree - the doc on meta could be much improved. Unfortunately, until more
is migrated (cleanly or otherwise) to
mediawiki.org, meta will still
dominate the search results - perpetuating the perception that it's an
authoritative source.
I don't have a solution for this short of a massive doc move effort or
putting annoyance text on every page asking "Hey there, before you edit
consider if this should be on
MediaWiki.org instead".
-- Jim
On 4/20/07, Rob Church <robchur(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 20/04/07, Tim Starling <tstarling(a)wikimedia.org> wrote:
Someone decided that most of
mediawiki.org should
be public domain
instead
of GFDL, thereby making any large scale movement
of text from meta
impossible.
To be honest; the licencing is the least of our worries; a lot of the
documentation on Meta is, for want of a nicer term, a bit crap; it's
out of date, full of thousands of little fixes for individual
configurations, or just plain wrong.
If we're going to have documentation on
MediaWiki.org, then we might
as well have decent documentation.
Rob Church
_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l