hee… that feels a little puzzling to me. I was thinking of implementing it as its own “archetype” because that’s what I thought it was for. Though this solution sounds much easier and very straight forward, you mind to explain what the “archetype” system is meant for if not cases like this?
I’m fine doing it either way and most definetly in a way that it gets merged faster, but if I do it, I might as well do it right from the beginning, so if archetypes are more appropriate, let me know …
Just make sure that there aren’t any regressions where the archetype of the post is being compared (because that happens all over the code). A wiki post should function just like a regular post in all other aspects.
That is a strong argument in favor of this not being a topic archetype. I don’t think it should be. Archetypes are for entire topics that have unique behaviors, they are not intended for individual posts that have slightly different behavior as in this case.
fair enough. care to explain what would be a different topic archetype example then? It hasn’t been defined somewhere, has it?
Because from how I’d see it, wiki would be about the first post in a topic in almost all cases, aren’t they? Or what case do you see when a collaborative post (that’s how I understand wikis in discourse at the moment) would be on other posts than the first one?
So assuming a wiki therefore is on mainly about the primary post, I’d argue that the other posts are a discussion about it, but you might also want to have this rendered differently with a higher emphasis on the wiki post itself – as this shall be subject of change, reflecting the latest conclusions of that conversation, shall it not? Coming from that perspective, looking at the current system, I’d argue that it falls on the level like the distinction between private message and normal topic. Which is defined by it’s archetype.
If it is just about allowing others to edit a post, I consider the “share edit” plugin a more than sufficient solution – and even for that one I don’t see why you’d do that for a non-primary post in a discussion…
Our intention with archetype is at a higher level.
Buying/Selling archetype, Chat archetype, Q&A etc.
The concept it to give a special skin and function per archetype. Wiki may fit there, but its way out of scope as this would involve large architectural changes. I much prefer to start with something, small, concrete, simple rather that starting work on archetypes which is a massive amount of work.
You’ve not actually given any use case. Sure – technically – all posts could be a wiki, but then again, so could they be polls. But you are making the good point, that they shouldn’t be.
Sure, technically, this is possible to implement. But same for polls, I’d consider this bad practice. Rather have a person “fork” the conversation and do a new “wiki-style” topic for it than start editing some post mid-way in the conversation as the “wiki” about it – it will be impossible to find for users…
I really like that idea and I see good reason to implement this independent from the wiki. But in particular, when allowing the post to become “unwiki-ed” by admins later, I feel this will be confusing after (as a post then has been edited by multiple authors and a visual cue was showing that but from that point on the visual cue would be gone). I would make the current status of who can edit a post independent from the wiki-flag. Having the admin menu with proper permissions per posts sounds like a much better idea.
Fair enough. Unfortunately what has been proposed as a “wiki” spec here wouldn’t be sufficient in the case of what we are working on (me, full-time from next week I might add) – as it is only about sharing edit permissions from what I can see. Instead what we do need for our installation is a “wiki” (or “article” as it is called here) which does have another layout and different behaviour and for sure, would be bound to the topic/first post. So, from all I’ve read and you’ve said, it should be implemented as its own archetype. I’m also not afraid of bigger amounts of work for that, that’s something I knew would be needed for it anyways. I’d just like to make it proper in the first place so we can merge this back into master and everyone can benefit from it.
Full Wiki topics, where post #1 is a table of contents and rest of posts are linked from there
Admins can do whatever they will, then can rewrite posts, impersonate users and wreak havoc with a forum if they wish. It is the nature of being an admin. Besides history is not going to be rewritten as part of un-wiki if ever needed so you can track it down. (Though admins will need nuke revision at some point)
There is a VERY important order of operations here. This is a strategic feature that we need first before building a huge battleship. This is a small, well specified, very useful feature that could be implemented in days. And must happen before we will even consider merging a wiki archetype into core. (which must be will specified regardless)
@velesin the major use case for editor sync is wiki type posts, was wondering if you would like to take this spec on, then I can go ahead and make all the howtos wikis and we can start exercising your awesome feature a bit more.