There's a simple and straightforward reason that we must at least launch with MediaWiki, namely, we can't afford anything else in terms either of money or time. One of the reasons Wikipedia has been a modest success is that good (not perfect) software was written specifically for the task of community encyclopedia building. As long as we are collaboratively writing encyclopedia articles, we'll probably be using some version of MediaWiki.
Translation: To keep up Citizendium buzz, we need to stick with Mediawiki in the near term.
I would say most of Wikipedia's success is based on "EBay" effect, once you are the dominant mover. Mediawiki was written specifically for the task of community encyclopedia building. Whether it succeeds at that is questionable.
Mediawiki likely won't be thrown out, just evolved.
I'm all in favor of keeping the system as simple as possible. If I have anything to do with it, we'll be deleting features, not adding them. Features get in the way of content, and simplicity reveals content. And content is king!
With due respect, I believe Mr. Sanger is confusing Usability
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usability with features (
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Features) or capability.
* Software Citizendium uses should be as capabile as possible for reasons of scale, security and anticipated future use. It should not be so overloaded with the kitchen sink (see ICQ) that it affects performance.
* The database backend wikipedia uses, MySQL, is not as capabale as other free open source databases. Just look at recent talk on Wikitech. This needs to be discussed.
* Mediawiki needs a usability overhaul. In current form, is it really the *Best* way to collaboratively edit an encyclopedia? I disagree. As part of the process of setting up citizendium, we will do a usability study on wikipedia.
From
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usability:
Usability includes considerations such as:
Who are the users, what do they know, and what can they learn? End users are the entire internet spectrum. They know computer and internet basics.
Editors/Contributors are internet users familiar with web forms and how to use them.
Advanced Editors may have a useful talent but not necessarily computer saavy.
It is the goal that end users and occasional editors can contribute to the system while providing advanced tools and methods for frequent editors and contributors.
What do users want or need to do? Users need to add, remove, copyedit and format text in a database in real time. Users also need to be able to comment, debate and protect data from malicious entities.
Users also need to authenticate themeselves and data stored in the database.
What is the general background of the users? Background ranges from minimal computer knowledge to advanced progamming skill.
What is the context in which the user is working? Users work in realtime via a browser interface updating a databse using a web form.
What has to be left to the machine? What to the user? Formatting, display is left to the machine. User responsible for most everything else.
Answers to these can be obtained by conducting user and task analysis at the start of the project.
Other considerations include:
Can users easily accomplish their intended tasks? For example, can users accomplish intended tasks at their intended speed? With Mediawiki alone, No. To combat vandalism for instance, outside software (bots) and methods (IRC) are employed to defend Wikipedia.
Using templates, users must use talk pages to convey discuss problems. This often leads to flame and edit wars rather than specific discussion on a word or text in a paragraph or section. In short, template use is not specific enough for disputes.
How much training do users need? For occasional editors, training should be very little. As users make more frequent contributions, the system may need to train users on policy, style, community and technical issues.
What documentation or other supporting materials are available to help the user? Can users find the solutions they seek in these materials? Mediawiki is very poorly documentated. Wikipedia is heaviliy documentated, however, locating such resources is difficult.
What and how many errors do users make when interacting with the product? Wikipedia has no built in spellcheck facility. While errors are higher than normal or desired, actions are usually correctable except in a few circumstances.
Can the user recover from errors? What do users have to do to recover from errors? Does the product help users recover from errors? For example, does software present comprehensible, informative, non-threatening error messages? Users can preview pages. Users can make use of minor edits to correct errors. Product generally does not help user recover from errors. Error messages produced by mediawiki are appropriate.
Are there provisions for meeting the special needs of users with disabilities? (accessibility) Work has been made toward making mediawiki accessible to disabled users.
Ultimately, with all due respect to programmers, the choice of system should not be left to programmers, who fall in love with particular technologies, and naturally want to do cool stuff, but often they just don't care as much as they should about solving particular problems elegantly, or making new features "pay their way" in actual useful functionality. For them, it's about the technology they champion, not about the best possible solution to what is, after all, a technology-neutral problem.
There are two ways to run IT departments:
Academic/Business based: These types of environments are run on pure cost basis and on the near term. Focus is heavily on the now with little investment in the future. Such environments are usually seen being run by people with little knowledge of the IT industry. While a significant portion of business and academic entities are run in this manner, such environments are hostile and one step away from disaster.
Engineering based: These types of environments are run on a needs basis with a focus on the long term. Infrastructure is planned for growth and scale. The best environments are run by those who can act as liason between IT and management and deliver both cost and growth needs. These types of cultures in a pure form are a rare breed. Such environments are desired and usually the entitiy maintaining them is wildly successful.
I think Larry is worried about zealotry, that tendency to pursue homogenous (
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homogenous) methods to destructive ends. Putting all your eggs in one basket is at worst a potential disaster or at best unintentionally boxing yourself in. Feature creep is Solutions searching for Problems and dangerous when it introduces bugs and performance issues.
To not box ourself in like Wikipedia has done with Mediawiki, PHP and MySQL, we need to pursue modular, easy to use and easy to maintain and update solutions. No one needs network and system admins spinning dinner plates on sticks all day.
-jtp Electrawn
