Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Education Program extension: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
→Terrible design: reply |
|||
| (11 intermediate revisions by 4 users not shown) | |||
Line 5:
==Known bugs==
See the [https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/buglist.cgi?list_id=140554&resolution=---&resolution=LATER&query_format=advanced&component=EducationProgram&product=MediaWiki%20extensions list of open bugs and enhancement requests]. The significant bugs will be fixed before deployment. The most noticeable
*The "MyCourses" special page doesn't show the recent activity it is supposed to, probably because of a conflict with another extension. [https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=39534]
Line 23 ⟶ 22:
:::I'm not sure how this extension works with the API; I'll ask the developer, Jeroen De Dauw, about that.--[[User:Sage Ross (WMF)|Sage Ross (WMF)]] ([[User talk:Sage Ross (WMF)|talk]]) 16:19, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
::::Or it could be built as a special page which can be transcluded into a normal wiki page.. <span style="font-variant:small-caps">[[User:John Vandenberg|John Vandenberg]] <sup>'''([[User talk:John Vandenberg|chat]])'''</sup></span> 16:52, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
:::::I do like that idea. I'm not sure if it's a possibility for future iterations or not, but I'll bring it up with Jeroen.--[[User:Sage Ross (WMF)|Sage Ross (WMF)]] ([[User talk:Sage Ross (WMF)|talk]]) 16:56, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
Reading through the stuff on the content page, it seems to me that most people want ''more'' integration, for instance with the new page patrol feeds. I got similar feedback after implementing the campaigns functionality for UploadWizard, which is something conceptually similar to what we're doing here, but was implemented as a special page. With as consequences that it was not well integrated because
* It has a different interface and workflow then regular articles
* It has no version history
* Deletion cannot be reverted, neither can any type of vandalism
* It has no associated discussion pages
* Edits do not show in recent changes or the page log stuff
* ... the list goes on really
We now have all of that - I don't think like the idea of giving all that functionality up, as it really increases usability and robustness a lot. --[[User:Jeroen De Dauw|Jeroen De Dauw]] ([[User talk:Jeroen De Dauw|talk]]) 18:41, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
:The problem isnt that more features are needed, or even that it is a special page. The extension is starting a new namespace rather than staying in the Special: namespace, and that would take half a day to fix. <span style="font-variant:small-caps">[[User:John Vandenberg|John Vandenberg]] <sup>'''([[User talk:John Vandenberg|chat]])'''</sup></span> 21:01, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
::Having it in its own namespace is the way it ought to work. The course pages have wiki histories (for the course description section) and the non-wiki parameters that can be changed are also part of the page histories. And the talk pages are pure wiki pages.--[[User:Sage Ross (WMF)|Sage Ross (WMF)]] ([[User talk:Sage Ross (WMF)|talk]]) 21:38, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
:::I provided a solution to that problem above. Nobody has explained how the API is going to work with this new namespace. Has this been specified yet, and are there test plans to confirm it is going to work as expected? <span style="font-variant:small-caps">[[User:John Vandenberg|John Vandenberg]] <sup>'''([[User talk:John Vandenberg|chat]])'''</sup></span> 22:56, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
::::Hopefully Jeroen can answer the API question. The idea of a transcludeable special page is one that appeals to me personally, but that's not an option that's part of this RfC, which is about the current iteration of the extension. It's a moot point; the way it's currently designed, it ought to be in a separate namespace.--[[User:Sage Ross (WMF)|Sage Ross (WMF)]] ([[User talk:Sage Ross (WMF)|talk]]) 23:37, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
== Next steps ==
''(Moved from the main page)'' Given the moderate level of support and small number of objections to turning on this extension, I'm going to file a bug to have it enabled. The clear most-preferred option for configuring it is the second one: the user rights for the extension (course coordinator, instructor, online volunteer, and campus volunteers) can be distributed by admins, and admins themselves have full access to the extension features. As soon as it's enabled, the current [[outreach:Regional_Ambassadors/Current|regional ambassadors]] who aren't already admins should be given the course coordinator right so they can set up course pages and flag instructors. We'll probably want to come up with standards and a process for guiding how admins distribute the course coordinator right in the future.--[[User:Sage Ross (WMF)|Sage Ross (WMF)]] ([[User talk:Sage Ross (WMF)|talk]]) 14:31, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
:This should be enabled shortly.--[[User:Sage Ross (WMF)|Sage Ross (WMF)]] ([[User talk:Sage Ross (WMF)|talk]]) 21:36, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
::As I have said at [[User_talk:Sage_Ross_(WMF)#closure]], I think your closure was both inappropriate and wrong. But if WMF is going to proceed and not address the issues above, I'll leave it at that and hope I don't get to say I told you so. <span style="font-variant:small-caps">[[User:John Vandenberg|John Vandenberg]] <sup>'''([[User talk:John Vandenberg|chat]])'''</sup></span> 23:38, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
:::I've undone the closure so that someone else can close it. We're going to get the configuration all set up and ready to enable. If the formal closure is somehow drastically different, I suppose we can step back and rethink how to proceed before it gets turned on. (Repeating from my talk page...) The main purpose of the RfC was to make sure we weren't turning this on against broad community opposition. Although the low participation is probably an indication that most people don't care much about it (understandable to an extent, since it won't affect much for those who aren't working with classes or monitoring student activity), there's clearly not much opposition to turning it on. As for the configuration, the middle option seems clearly the one that is acceptable to the most people (no explicit opposition to that choice, and the most support). I would have like a much more active RfC, but given that the discussion more or less ended three weeks ago, I didn't see any reason not to archive it. But since John has objected, I'm happy to have someone else close it formally.--[[User:Sage Ross (WMF)|Sage Ross (WMF)]] ([[User talk:Sage Ross (WMF)|talk]]) 00:02, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
== don't get why rfc? ==
why not just roll it out. try things.
==maybe good idea to compare to==
Check out what Sunny made for Jimmy Butler's classes: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_AP_Biology_2011#Members
just sharing
| |||