Talk:Jobs
Add topicLatest comment: 17 years ago by HappyDog in topic Changed to a disclaimer page plus an off-site link
Appropriateness of this page
[edit]I am not sure this page is appropriate on this site, but I'd like to get a few other people's opinions before deleting. Thoughts? --HappyDog 01:28, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
- I tagged this page with {{speedy}} way back when this was a new page and I still think this should be deleted. --Sayuri 12:15, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
- I don't disapprove of the idea behind it, but I'm not sure if wiki software is the best means of organising this sort of thing. The page itself has a confusing and unprofessional appearance. robchurch | talk 12:19, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
- I am just not sure if MediaWiki.org is the best place for it. It sits slightly uncomfortably with me, given that the site is built by volunteer labour. Also, by allowing the page we are kind of endorsing it, which could really backfire if a job turns sour. It might be better if something of this sort was hosted off-site. I would have no objection to linking to such a forum if it existed (with an appropriate disclaimer). I think it is important to keep paid support separate from volunteer development (in much the same way as Subversion and CollabNet work). --HappyDog 01:02, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
- +1 I think it would be ok to keep this page (title) in general, but to only allow short links to off-wiki sites/pages? Basically, just like this:
- * Date – Company – location – [link to the specific offer]
- Further information (requirements, contact, etc.) should always be given off-wiki only.
- I see no need for a table structure atm as there are only a few offers known yet that could be listed, and these entries could easiliy listed by date.
- A special note (… "mediawiki.org is not associated with the offerers" or such) should be at the top, of course.
- --:Bdk: 10:23, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
- I am just not sure if MediaWiki.org is the best place for it. It sits slightly uncomfortably with me, given that the site is built by volunteer labour. Also, by allowing the page we are kind of endorsing it, which could really backfire if a job turns sour. It might be better if something of this sort was hosted off-site. I would have no objection to linking to such a forum if it existed (with an appropriate disclaimer). I think it is important to keep paid support separate from volunteer development (in much the same way as Subversion and CollabNet work). --HappyDog 01:02, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
Changed to a disclaimer page plus an off-site link
[edit]I have changed the Jobs page to be a disclaimer plus an off-site link to a new wiki for the commercial aspects of MediaWiki (and other wikis). To explain my reasoning for doing this:
- As discussed above, and also recently on wikitech-l, there's an element of a commercial page sitting uncomfortably with the volunteer status of this site.
- There is also a concern that listings here could be misinterpreted as an endorsement or recommendation by the WMF, when no such endorsement or recommendation exists.
- The current page is not actually being used, so moving it off-site doesn't "break" anything that is currently relied upon.
- In addition to the jobs listed, people have expressed an interest in commercial support, wiki gardeners, etc, so it's maybe not broad enough currently for the purpose of listing all available commercial aspects.
- Some folks also wanted to be able to find specialists in other wikis too. It would probably not be ideal for mediawiki.org to host lists of commercial offerings for other wiki systems.
Anyway, that's a quick summary of why these changes were made, hopefully this doesn't annoy anyone, and if you want something added to WikiHR.net, then please go right ahead, and "be bold"! -- All the best, Nickj 07:13, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
- That's great Nick - thanks! --HappyDog 15:10, 9 October 2007 (UTC)