heeā¦ that feels a little puzzling to me. I was thinking of implementing it as its own āarchetypeā because thatās what I thought it was for. Though this solution sounds much easier and very straight forward, you mind to explain what the āarchetypeā system is meant for if not cases like this?
Iām 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 ā¦
Just make sure that there arenāt 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 donāt 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 hasnāt been defined somewhere, has it?
Because from how Iād see it, wiki would be about the first post in a topic in almost all cases, arenāt they? Or what case do you see when a collaborative post (thatās 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, Iād 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 ā 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, Iād argue that it falls on the level like the distinction between private message and normal topic. Which is defined by itās archetype.
If it is just about allowing others to edit a post, I consider the āshare editā plugin a more than sufficient solution āĀ and even for that one I donāt see why youād do that for a non-primary post in a discussionā¦
No, I donāt think thatās true at all for Wiki. Any post could be wiki. Polls do work this way though, they have to be the first post otherwise it is insanity.
No, this is a core feature, and the spec walks through the reason this is strategic, it starts work towards the admin menu per post, which we need of many reasons.
Wiki can happen anywhere in a topic, you can start discussion then have the community work on a wiki mid topic.
Longer term plans of the spec deal with per-topic type permissions.
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.
Youāve not actually given any use case. Sure ā technically ā all posts could be a wiki, but then again, so could they be polls. But you are making the good point, that they shouldnāt be.
Sure, technically, this is possible to implement. But same for polls, Iād consider this bad practice. Rather have a person āforkā the conversation and do a new āwiki-styleā topic for it than start editing some post mid-way in the conversation as the āwikiā about it ā it will be impossible to find for usersā¦
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 āunwiki-edā 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 āwikiā spec here wouldnāt be sufficient in the case of what we are working on (me, full-time from next week I might add) āĀ as it is only about sharing edit permissions from what I can see. Instead what we do need for our installation is a āwikiā (or āarticleā 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 Iāve read and youāve said, it should be implemented as its own archetype. Iām also not afraid of bigger amounts of work for that, thatās something I knew would be needed for it anyways. Iād 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
Etc.
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.
Yup, go ahead. I currently have my hands full on other parts and canāt take care of this. But Iād love to help on the whole admin-menu-part. If you need any help, just shoot me a line.
Hi! Just a few days ago I sent an email to Jeff about this topic. In my company there are two developers whom we are working with, that could dedicate time on this.
If @velesin wants to start on this and then we could contribute in some way, we would love to help to develope this feature
For now this seems like too compact feature to comfortably split work among several people, so Iāll start myself right now - but if I get stuck or will need help on something Iāll surely let you know!
