Talk:Developers

Please do not post support questions here.

Instead,

• see Project:Support desk
• use the mailing list

Further options for contacting appropriate people can be found at Communication.

Previous page history was archived for backup purposes at Talk:Developers/LQT Archive 1 on 2015-07-10.

Bonjour,

Je fais parti de l'association Wikimédia France.

Wikimédia France souhaite profiter du 2 millionième article de la Wikipédia francophone, pour mieux faire connaître l'envers du décor. Administrateur, arbitre, wikifourmis, labélisateur, etc sont méconnus du grand public. Nous nous sommes inspirés du projet Faces of Open Source [1] pour faire connaître une vingtaine de  fonctions du wikipédien. A la place du portrait que nous n'avons pas le temps de réaliser, nous allons faire faire des dessins représentant la fonction. Pour chaque fonction sélectionnée, nous cherchons un ou une wikipédienne disposé à répondre à ces quelques questions :

   - Qu'est ce qu'un [nom du poste] ?

    - Comment fais tu ?

    - Pourquoi aimes/participes tu au mouvement Wikimédia ?

Quelqu'un accepterait de prendre quelques minutes pour répondre à ces questions en tant que développeur MediaWiki ?

Dans l'attente de vos réponses, je vous souhaite une belle journée !

~~~~

[1] http://facesofopensource.com/

Does the development community include testers as well as developers? The current controversy over VisualEditor shows the importance of better pre-release testing (as well as that VisualEditor should not have been enabled in article space when it was).

I don't understand the question. Yes, there are testers. No, they are not developers. Yes, they are part of the MediaWiki community too.

The previously contested edits were accepted.

@Tomybrz: What was wrong with my edit? Was it factually incorrect? If developers continue to be involved in this manner, I don't think the sentence should start with "Historically". And I'm almost sure the sentence "Before bureaucrat and steward groups are created" is wrong in tense because the bureacrat and steward user groups were created at one discrete point in time; they aren't continually created (new users are added to the groups, but that's not the same thing as creating the groups themselves.) E to the Pi times i (talk) 14:16, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

@E to the Pi times i Hi, please excuse me for my undo. I review a second time and it's good (I didn't see "Historically",) so my bad. Sorry again

Hi!

I've been trying to either find the German translation of the "Wikimedia Error" page or an appropriate talk page, but could find neither. The source code of the page links to User:Mark, who hasn't edited on en-wp for quite a while now, and this talk page. Could someone please point me in the right direction?

Best

Hi,

If I have a proprietary project, that is intended to be distributed commercially, and there is a wiki that is required with it,

can I use MediaWiki  for the purpose?

The Wiki portion will be hosted separately and the communication with it from the rest of the project will happen over REST.

Could anyone please help me with understanding the

following passage of GPL-2.0:

"These requirements apply to the modified work as a whole. If identifiable sections of that work are not derived from the

Program, and can be reasonably considered independent and separate works in themselves, then this License, and its terms,

do not apply to those sections when you distribute them as separate works. But when you distribute the same sections as part

of a whole which is a work based on the Program, the distribution of the whole must be on the terms of this License, whose

permissions for other licensees extend to the entire whole, and thus to each and every part regardless of who wrote it."

Both products are separate with respect to functionality.

Besides, the REST API in MediaWiki, I believe, is there for such communications.

Does making a REST call to MediaWiki makes the calling project fall under the GPL's sphere?

Thanks for the product, it works great.

Thanks for your time.

Hi, I am not a lawyer but you can use MediaWiki for private and commercial use without any problem. The GPL license refers to changes in the code of MediaWiki, not on its regular use.

The GPL refers to modification and redistribution of the MediaWiki source code, not any content that may be stored inside of MediaWiki.

Could anyone help in getting an author's approval for the same? :)

Could you clarify who you want an approval from, and what that approval should be for?

Since the authors of the software can choose multiple licensing policies for the same software and can clarify aspects of terms, the authors can clarify like 'Just making calls to REST API of MediaWiki doesn't force you to make the source code of the calling application available'. Is there a separate group of authors or any member who is contributing in this community can be considered as author?

@Mohnish kamble the point of the license of the software (GPL in this case) is that you don't need any explicit approval from the authors as long as you follow the license. As we have discussed above, your intended use of MediaWiki is compliant with its license. That's it, that's all. You don't need anything else to run MediaWiki for your project.

Thank you Qgil-WMF. Could you please take a look at these sections of GPL's FAQ? https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.en.html#MereAggregation https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.en.html#GPLWrapper

These somewhat make the communication of two systems hazy when one is GPL and the other is not. I just need some assurance that communicating with MediaWiki by a separate program over REST/Web-service doesn't cause any violation regarding its intended use.

You are using MediaWiki as is in your server, not modifying it or redistributing it. "communicating with MediaWiki by a separate program over REST/Web-service" poses no conflict with the MediaWiki license.

Alright @Qgil-WMF. Thanks for your time.

We could update this page with Engineering_Community_Team/Developer_Relations_team#Types_of_developers.

On all those sites that use MathJax, I can choose the Math renderer to be from: MathML, HTML+CSS, SVG and more options... If Wikipedia had all those options, we could leave everything as LaTeX and all the zillion hours spent on math typography (and writing all those templates for HTML maths) could be spent on writing actual mathematical content. Offering the MathJax HTML+CSS rendering option does not get in the way of their project of supporting the MathML rendering option; NOT offering the MathJax HTML+CSS rendering option does get in the way of their project of supporting the MathML rendering option because people are then inclined to write the math in HTML with templates instead of the LaTeX that MathJax needs as input. Oops... — Tentacles^{✉ mailto:Tentacles} 01:37, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

From: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Mathematics/Typography#Consequences_of_a_lack_of_consensus_concerning_inline_text_style_mathematical_formulae

— Tentacles^{✉ mailto:Tentacles} 01:38, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

The Maintainers section looks really nice. :-)

Knowing shit isn't being maintained is also valuable info, I guess ;).

And that's only about the main extensions, so it doesn't touch the vast challenge of finding who to ask about most of them!

nyghgjg

nhjyujj