Hi Nick, Thanks for the rapid response! I'm not sure how much I'm allowed to discuss details about our needs (we are working on a project for a client), but my understanding is that it involves a commenting system built on top of our wikis which is
1) easy to use and similar to Facebook, YouTube, or other systems where you can immediately and easily see comments at the bottom of a post or a page, and 2) queryable, perhaps from an API or some other method, such that we could potentially build an extension which could aggregate comments by user or associated page (similar to Reddit, where you can see a user's comments from their user page). In the future, we'd also like to be able to assign high level 'topics' to wiki pages and be able to query for discussion threads related to these topics. Our wikis are backed by Semantic MediaWiki, so we were thinking of using semantic properties to help with the querying aspect if we built our own commenting system, but we're also investigating Flow to see how well it could meet these needs. I'm not sure that the header area of the Flow board is useful to us in the pursuit of our first use case, unfortunately. It sounds like that could be good if we were building a new wiki in which every single page was a Flow board, and the header area was the actual article itself. That would simulate a comment area beneath a wiki page. Unfortunately, we already have an existing wiki with content. Jason On Wed, Feb 4, 2015 at 4:54 PM, Nick Wilson (Quiddity) < [email protected]> wrote: > Hi Jason, > > Regarding embedding Flow at the base of a standard wikipage (as LQT can > do), that's not currently possible, but Flow does have a header area that > uses wikitext, and can be as long as desired. See and test freely, at > https://test.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sandbox > Would that meet your use-cases? If not, please could you describe or point > to examples of what you're after? > > I've asked some of the Flow devs to comment on your questions about > querying, and to give details on the upcoming/planned new ways to enable > Flow selectively via the API, and via an on-wiki interface, without having > to edit any config files. > > Nick / Quiddity > > > On Wed, Feb 4, 2015 at 12:59 PM, Jason Ji <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Hi Max, > > > > I'm looking at Flow today. The documentation talks about how to replace > > individual pages or entire namespaces with flow boards (using > > $wgFlowOccupyPages and $wgFlowOccupyNamespaces). However, is there a way > to > > embed a Flow board at the base of a wiki page, as a more traditional > > commenting system might look like? Also, is there a way to query for Flow > > comments with parameters such as Flow comments by user, Flow comments by > > associated page, etc? > > > > Thanks, > > Jason Ji > > > > > > On Fri, Jan 30, 2015 at 7:40 PM, Max Semenik <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > > On Fri, Jan 30, 2015 at 10:11 AM, Jason Ji <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > > > > Thanks for your feedback. To clarify a bit, we're not thinking of > using > > > > LiquidThreads as it is - we have a different extension we will be > > > building, > > > > with some different needs than LQT has. For example, we may not need > > any > > > > integration with watchlists. So our thought is that we might fork LQT > > and > > > > modify it to suit our needs. We're still very early in the design > > phase. > > > > > > > > > > The bad part of LQT is not about interaction with watchlist. It will be > > > essentially untouched by any trimming short of complete rewrite. > > > > > > > > > > Max - when you say just use Flow, do you mean we should fork the Flow > > > code > > > > base and work from there, or that we should just install Flow? Flow > > looks > > > > interesting, but we're not sure it will have the features we need, > and > > > our > > > > timeframe is likely to be shorter than the timeframe of Flow > > development. > > > > > > > > > > If you fork something, you will have to maintain it forever - why not > put > > > the same effort in contributing to mainline instead? And Flow is quite > > > complete for most use cases, and its team is mostly working on adding > > > support for various crazy workflows user communities have created in > more > > > than 10 years without a good discussion system. I don't think you need > to > > > wait for these. > > > > > > > > > > Is there somewhere I can go read in detail about the bugs and > unfixable > > > > problems with LQT? We might not fork LQT at all, but we were also > > > thinking > > > > of using wiki pages to store comment text. So if that idea is > > > fundamentally > > > > broken, it would be great to know why. > > > > > > > > > I already explained why, bugs are here: > > > https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/search/query/ojED3mdcIKDQ/ > > > > > > > > > -- > > > Best regards, > > > Max Semenik ([[User:MaxSem]]) > > > _______________________________________________ > > > MediaWiki-l mailing list > > > To unsubscribe, go to: > > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/mediawiki-l > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > MediaWiki-l mailing list > > To unsubscribe, go to: > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/mediawiki-l > > > > > > -- > Nick Wilson (Quiddity) > Community Liaison > Wikimedia Foundation > _______________________________________________ > MediaWiki-l mailing list > To unsubscribe, go to: > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/mediawiki-l > _______________________________________________ MediaWiki-l mailing list To unsubscribe, go to: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/mediawiki-l
