Quote:
Originally Posted by Tristan Lall
[*]The wiki is licenced under GFDL 1.2. That's a big pain, because it forces redistributors to provide a copy of the licence with the derivative work—not so bad for a licence dedicated to books, but inconvenient for short excerpts. Creative Commons CC-BY-SA-3.0 is a better alternative. (Unfortunately, FIRSTWiki missed the deadline to convert from GFDL 1.2 to CC-BY-SA 3.0; for complicated reasons, that option is no longer available, without the consent of all past authors whose work would be built upon.) Consider requiring all new content to be dual-licenced like Wikipedia does: both GFDL and CC-BY-SA. |
This is a pain in the $@#$@#$@#, so I'd think honestly at this point it would be easier to start a new wiki (keep the old content for reference), with all contributions under CC-BY-SA. Articles can't be copied over from the old wiki but they could be used as reference when writing new ones.
Quote:
|
[*]Borrow the better parts of Wikipedia's style guides, and some useful templates. (They really are the best resource for wiki-based formatting, despite all the internal squabbling that goes on there.)
|
Internal squabbling? In a large project? Perish the thought!
Wikipedia (and Meta-Wiki) have very useful guides, templates, and tools.
Quote:
|
[*]Since the fundamental unit of this site is a team's page, establish specific stylistic guidelines for that, to allow a clean, consistent appearance.
|
A large custom template substituted into all team pages as the page is created would be helpful.
Quote:
|
[*]Have enough administrators active so that the wiki doesn't go dormant.
|
Hey, I have some experience! I could do that.