[cgiapp] Future of the wiki (was: Re: CGI::Application wiki page Examples)

[P Kishor]

On Thu, Jan 28, 2010 at 9:18 PM, Mark Stosberg <mark at summersault.com> wrote:
>
>> The idea was that the 315 subscribers to this mailing list are the only
>> people in the world with the slightest motivation to delete spam from
>> the wiki and, since its not a terribly thriving, active wiki, even we
>> members of the cgiapp community don't visit it all that much.
>>
>> So my hope was that by having these messages come to the list would
>> remind people that the Wiki exists, "ping" them that people contribute
>> to it, and maybe spark enough curiosity that someone checks to see what
>> was edited, and in the process, is able to find and fix spam.
>
> In my case, this has been working, and I have been visiting more. I
> don't really mind the notices right now, but I can also understand that
> the mailing list could feel like a drag if the quality of discourse was
> lowered to primarily being terse automated messages about wiki updates.
>
> It seems like a nice option to be enabled per-user, but then I'm not
> sure I want to see all the automated updates in my personal inbox...
>
>> It's my last attempt to save the Wiki.  If it continues to be used more
>> by spammers than the community, then it is not really worth the time and
>> trouble involved in continuing to operate it.  If, as I hope, these
>> messages help spur the community to step up and contribute and help
>> maintain and police the thing, then we'll be able to continue to have a
>> Wiki for the foreseeable future!
>
> Since I do some website admin work myself, I also appreciate this
> sentiment.
>
> Perhaps the wiki would be more interesting to use if we used a different
> wiki engine. Kwiki is written in Perl, but certainly never took off and
> seems to lack some features that seem standard in wikis now. For
> example, it seems like a large flaw that it offers no way to enter a
> short message explaining *why* a change would made.
>
> Other alternatives I'm familiar with include MediaWiki (PHP...), Trac
> (Python...) or and gitit (Haskell...). There was some interest in
> building a wiki based on CGI::Application, but that hasn't materialized.
> I'm sad to say that there's not a Perl-based wiki that I'm aware of as
> becoming prosperous and popular. For me, open-source vs. closed-source
> is ultimately a greater concern, and I could put aside language
> preferences and use another open source option.
>
> But back to the fundamental question: If the wiki was overhauled, would
> you use it and maintain it more?
>


Both David and you make important points, and I too empathize with
David's sentiments. Allow me to say "from the hip" at the risk of
being accused of "if you complain then do something about it." I hope
the community view the following in the spirit that it is offered --
constructive feedback.

The cgi-app wiki is a very valuable resource, but is an outdated and
old-school looking resource. Actually, such seems to be the public
facing problem of most of perl-based incarnations -- perlmonks still
lives in dark ages although there have been many meditations on
overhauling it; heck, even the perl6 site looks goofy and not modern
at all. I downloaded Rakudo Perl, and am blown away by the language.
It looks be a fantastic incarnation when it arrives production ready.
But that Camelia spokesbug and the amateurish, nay, un-designed
rounded rectangles on the front-page with the center-piece being a
button that can't make up its mind whether it wants to be rounded or
square cornered, Perl6 website looks like it is for a totally
un-serious tool.

Compare these to stuff made with RoR, or the regular rubylang site, or
the jQuery site, or sites showcasing stuff made with jQuery. They all
look and feel modern. Ajaxy bits, nice logos, good color schemes.
cgi-app.org is actually one of the better ones of the perl family. I
just wish it were even more modern and better.

It would definitely behoove if cgi-app.org were running a protected
wiki written in cgi-app. I would rather the keys to the wiki were with
only a few chosen ones as long as I could ask them for it in case I
wanted to add or update a page or a how-to. Perhaps editing of the
wiki could be allowed only by those who are members of this mailing
list. That would be some measure of control that they are benevolent,
or at least benign humans. Until a wiki based on cgi-app can be made
by someone, there indeed are other Perl-based wiki that can serve very
well -- Twiki especially comes to mind. Oddmuse is a nice looking one,
and is hugely simple to implement, but may not offer the security
desired.

Ok. Enough of what seems like a rant (I iterate, it is not meant to be
a rant). Here are some immediate suggestions --

1. Implement a Perl-based wiki that is still being developed and has
not been abandoned. This should be a stop-gap measure until a cgi-app
based wiki is developed (if it is not developed, so be it... at least
the cgi-app site would be running Perl).

2. Modernize the site bringing it in line with jQuery or RoR websites
with modern color schemes, Ajaxy goodness, and clean URLs.

3. Update and offer Mark Rajcok's turnkey web application as a
best-of-breed example, modernizing and improving it where needed.
Heck, perhaps that application itself can be used as the basis for a
new cgi-app presence. It is a nice, well documented, and half-decent
looking application. I have benefited from it, and believe others
would also benefit from it.

Alright. I am sure I have said way more than I should have, but I hope
you all will consider at least some of the substance of my critique,
and not just flame me for it.

Thanks for building a great tool and providing it for others.
Maintenance of it is an onerous but worthy task.

Puneet.