It was noted at ExecMeeting20060628 that being able to add (possibly versioned) attachments to wiki pages would be useful. It would make it easier to keep track of different versions of things such as InstallFest posters, brochures for ClubsDay, etc..
One possibility mould be to switch to a better wiki system. Here are some possibilities:
MoinMoin (http://moinmoin.wikiwikiweb.de/)
- Written in Python
- Pages can have attachments.
Flexible theming by editing CSS and / or Python templates (see e.g. https://wiki.ubuntu.com/; or http://moinmoin.wikiwikiweb.de/MoinMoinScreenShots for many screenshots of different themes)
- ACLs
- Thus could be used to replace the static HTML parts of the Interface website
MediaWiki (http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/MediaWiki)
- Uploaded files treated as a special kind of page, and versioned as usual
- Familiar to many people due to Wikipedia
Discussion!
DonAld says: Plans to switch wikis should include some idea of who will maintain the new wiki, and how content from the old one will be transferred.
JoelWPauling says: Agree'd, my vote goes for mediawiki, because of it's Content Management like nature... which... will mean it can be used for everything. Maintenance should probably go to a named "Webmaster" position, which defaults to Secretary.
AndrewWalbran says: What CMS-like things can MediaWiki do that MoinMoin can't? There is a (very limited) UseMod -> MoinMoin conversion script listed here: http://offog.org/code/misccode.html. Also, MoinMoin has a better name :-).
AndrewWalbran says: WikiGateway may be a better option for migration. See http://www.decafbad.com/twiki/bin/view/Main/WikiWikiBridge, http://interwiki.sourceforge.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl/WikiGateway and http://www.communitywiki.org/cw/WikiGateway.
DonAld blathers on:
What CMS-like things can MediaWiki do? I mean, it can be a wiki, and it is presumably themeable... but then practically any wiki is. PmWiki, for instance, is extraordinarily themeable, and has lots of access control stuff, and is highly hackable (see, for instance, http://www.wikipublisher.org/). UseMod is less hackable (it suffers the OneEnormousLumpOfPerl problem), and has less ACL support. I'd suggest that we go for something relatively simple and hackable that provides most of the features we want and that more than one member is capable of hacking when needed (to reduce the TruckNumber]). Hackability becomes key when you get heaps of spam and need to implement a feature like the EditCode supported by this wiki, for instance.
Personally I'm not so keen on MediaWiki, if only because I prefer wikis with deliberately simple markup, and MediaWiki allows full HTML.
I've migrated a wiki (ElvisBrain, from Qwiki to the current UseMod) before. It's easy if you can write the 10-40 lines of perl necessary to grab pages, change the markup, and perform a POST of the edit form on the target wiki.
I'd suggest, as a way forward, that people who are keen on wiki-ifying the whole site have a go at building up some approximate mirror of the existing interface site using their favourite wiki engine, including an attempt to implement some anti-wikispam features and a conversion of the existing UseMod-based wiki. This means that the end product will be a shiny new site, and at least one person who knows how to hack it. For someone sufficiently talented I can't see it being more than an evening or two's work. I'd be happy to do some code review of whatever changes are made, too.
RichardHector suggests that perhaps a wiki isn't suitable for the whole site, and that some parts could/should have a more formal (perhaps task-specific and very restricted) CMS - for example for posting agenda, such that people can add agenda items up to a cut-off date, then can only add comments after that. There would be other examples for other parts of the site. This could add some accountability.