We need to agree on the name for the 'developer hub'.
- Wikimedia Developer Hub (default option)
- MediaWiki Developer Hub
- Wikimedia Data & Developer Hub
- MediaWiki Data & Developer Hub
- Wikimedia API
We need to agree on the name for the 'developer hub'.
|Resolved||Qgil||T101099 Developer Relations Roadmap|
|Resolved||Qgil||T113030 Developer Relations quarterly review Jul-Sep 2015|
|Resolved||Qgil||T101100 Engineering Community quarterly goals for July-September 2015|
|Resolved||• Spage||T101441 Goal: Integrate the new Web APIs hub with mediawiki.org|
|Resolved||Qgil||T308 A single Developer Hub plan agreed and documented|
|Resolved||Qgil||T311 URL of the Developer Hub|
|Resolved||Qgil||T309 Name for the 'developer hub'|
msyed wrote on 2014-07-24 17:26:47 (UTC)
I think the word "Data" should be in the name too. I know Dario wants that too. Besides developers we also want researchers, data journalists, dataviz artists/scientists and such to use what we are building.
How does everyone feel about the name "Wikimedia Data & Developer Hub"?
qgil wrote on 2014-07-25 10:46:34 (UTC)
My reasons against "Wikimedia Data & Developer Hub"
Looking at https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Data_%26_Developer_Hub#External_examples we can see that there are a few terms used to reference to projects: developer(s), docs, API, engineering, services.
Therefore, what about
Short, crystal clear, and equidistant from pure developers and pure researches. The sections Inspire, Explore, and Build refer to the API. This would "free" mediawiki.org's Developer Hub from direct pressure, and such pressure would be inflicted directly on https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Api, which is really the area that this project wants to revamp.
DarTar wrote on 2014-08-15 17:45:57 (UTC)
Sorry for not chiming in earlier. I gave some feedback to Quim and Moiz at Wikimania.
I told Quim that I actually don't dislike the Wikimedia API idea, although that shifts the focus away from some of the most important datasets that people use (such as the XML dumps and the pageview dumps) which currently are not served by an API (and may never be)
Aside from this, there will also be some confusion we need to be aware of with the MediaWiki API. Right now if you ask people about the English Wikipedia API they will (legitimatelly) point you to /api.php – so I remain conflicted about this option although it's definitely one that doesn't suck.
From a totally different angle, partly inspired by Last.fm (1, partly inspired by Raph Koster's excellent Wikimania talk about the educational role of fun, I thought play.wikimedia.org would make a really nice domain name. No confusion with Wikidata about the use of the word "data", no restriction imposed by the choice of "API" and a clear indication that this is about encouraging people to reuse, remix and creatively build stuff on top of our APIs and data. Google uses "playground" for the OAuth section of their developer hub.
What do you guys think?
qgil wrote on 2014-08-18 20:47:14 (UTC)
After letting the idea sink during the weekend...
Although I don't dislike the concept of "Play" and I welcome the attitude behind it, it is also true that both Last.fm and Google don't use it prominently, and they use it with a different meaning.
I still think "Wikimedia API" is the clearest label to attract the kind of developers, researchers and other curious minds we want to target. The fact that some of that curiousity will be satisfied with data sets instead of APIs sounds secondary to me. What is important is that the label is clear and will attract the right people.
jaredzimmerman wrote on 2014-08-19 18:52:04 (UTC)
Hi all (and hi Phabricator) putting my marketing hat on I want to provide some feedback on some of the proposals
Wikimedia Developer Hub
Wikimedia Data & Developer Hub
qgil wrote on 2014-08-20 09:31:04 (UTC)
No comments about "Wikimedia API" and api.wikimedia.org?
"verb.wikimedia.org" is only actionable when you propose an actual verb. :) Build, Make, Create, Invent may work when they are used next to technology brands/products/services, but I fear we might miss the shot when using them next to Wikimedia, which simplifying a lot is seen as "an encyclopedia".
Build, Make, Create, Invent + "an encyclopedia" is not the message we want to send. API + "an encyclopedia" makes the right call to the right target.
Maybe the API option sounds kind of boring to you, but it is good to remember that most of the sites you have been showcasing as good examples are named as "API" or "Developers". I'd rather bet on clarity and discoverability, especially considering the Wikimedia-Wikipedia-MediaWiki confusion, and the gazilion pages, projects, and programs we have, many of them featuring own creative names like GLAM, Teahouse, Meta, Wikitech, etc.
msyed wrote on 2014-08-20 18:56:02 (UTC)
My concern with api.wikimedia.org is that it sounds technical and actively works against one of the project goals which is to make an inclusive and inviting place for people to build and experiment with Wikimedia APIs & data.
I think we have two options:
I'm happy with either of these two options.
qgil wrote on 2014-08-21 10:24:05 (UTC)
Mmm well, ok, I don't see why someone willing to play with and API or ready to process huge datasets should be scared by the term "API", but we really need to settle this and other discussions in order to do some actual progress.
Let me double-check that "play.wikimedia.org" and "Play" are good from an Engineering & Comms point of view. An updated mockup for the home showing how this would look like is welcome.
qgil wrote on 2014-08-25 11:55:24 (UTC)
"play.wikimedia.org" was seen as unnecessarily too close to Google Play, a brand that is receiving a heavy investment. I agree, we don't need to get there having other verbs around.
@Mysed and I are happy with "build.wikimedia.org" aka "Build". Agreed & resolving.
Just for future readers:
Back in August this was discussed further, and the actual conclusion was
So "dev.wikimedia.org" is the best candidate for a name we have got, until a better alternative wins.