[html4all.org] Wiki Categories

[John Foliot]

Robert Burns wrote:
> Hello everyone,
> 
> Being back on Wikimedia is quite nice. I hadn't realized how much the
> W3C wiki was holding me back. I notice that some HTML is forbidden
> (which is probably fine), but at least it supports regular table
> syntax so we can make accessible and richer semantic tables.
> 
> I setup some proposed categories on my own user page on the wiki[1].
> For one thing this will help navigating our wiki content. For
> another, it helps think about what content we want and need. I also
> created an umbrella category called "Categories"[2]. This way,, as we
> create categories we can make sure to add the category "Categories"
> and we'll the wikimedia software will maintain a complete
> hierarchical index off topics/categories. This capability may be
> built-in to the wikimedia software already, but I'm not aware of it
> (the capability to view a listing of all categories that is).

I formally nominate Rob as Wiki-master.  Rob, thanks for doing all this, as
lordy knows I don't have the cycles these days.  Feel free to do what needs
doing, and if required, contact me off list for extra keys to the castle if
you require them (ie: swapping out logo).

> 
> It occurred to me that we may have a problem when WhatWG discovers
> our wiki and want to edit it to "correct" our misconceptions. We
> might want to think  about how we should deal with that.

Good question.  I have no problem with them seeing this (I would actually
love to see their collective faces when they first discover it... Laura, you
seem to have a good handle on the IRC logs - watch that space first).  As
for them "contributing"... My personal feeling is that they are free to
contribute, but we retain final editorial control.  One of the beefs is that
they ignore or dismiss (or diminish) some of our issues/concerns in favor of
their own agendas, so keeping dialogue open in a forum that they do not
control can have positive results as well.  If they feel we need to be
corrected or that our perspectives are "incorrect" then the onus is on them
to defend/define their response... In other words they must continue to
engage in *our* concerns, rather than the other way around.

Thoughts?

JF
(still struggling with mailman - any power-users out there?)