hee⊠that feels a little puzzling to me. I was thinking of implementing it as its own âarchetypeâ because thatâs what I thought it was for. Though this solution sounds much easier and very straight forward, you mind to explain what the âarchetypeâ system is meant for if not cases like this?
Iâm 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 âŠ
Just make sure that there arenât 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 donât 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 hasnât been defined somewhere, has it?
Because from how Iâd see it, wiki would be about the first post in a topic in almost all cases, arenât they? Or what case do you see when a collaborative post (thatâs 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, Iâd 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 â 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, Iâd argue that it falls on the level like the distinction between private message and normal topic. Which is defined by itâs archetype.
If it is just about allowing others to edit a post, I consider the âshare editâ plugin a more than sufficient solution â and even for that one I donât see why youâd do that for a non-primary post in a discussionâŠ
No, I donât think thatâs 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.
Youâve not actually given any use case. Sure â technically â all posts could be a wiki, but then again, so could they be polls. But you are making the good point, that they shouldnât be.
Sure, technically, this is possible to implement. But same for polls, Iâd consider this bad practice. Rather have a person âforkâ the conversation and do a new âwiki-styleâ topic for it than start editing some post mid-way in the conversation as the âwikiâ about it â it will be impossible to find for usersâŠ
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 âunwiki-edâ 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 âwikiâ spec here wouldnât be sufficient in the case of what we are working on (me, full-time from next week I might add) â as it is only about sharing edit permissions from what I can see. Instead what we do need for our installation is a âwikiâ (or âarticleâ 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 Iâve read and youâve said, it should be implemented as its own archetype. Iâm also not afraid of bigger amounts of work for that, thatâs something I knew would be needed for it anyways. Iâd 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 canât take care of this. But Iâd 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 Iâll start myself right now - but if I get stuck or will need help on something Iâll surely let you know!
