qgil wrote on 2014-08-26 20:05:44 (UTC)

Can we publish API documentation under CC0 when it is extracted from source code files that are surely not CC0?

In T369#4129, @Legoktm wrote:

The biggest advantage of the Help namespace is that everything is PD, so anyone can use it with absolutely no restrictions.

I would much prefer using that instead of creating yet another namespace. But namespaces are cheap, and if we choose to go the ContentHandler route, we'll have to use a separate one.

I'd rather keep the scope of this namespace to developer documentation. Mixing Help namespace will get messy. If we want to use CC0 for this, we can always do it.

Change 187278 had a related patch set uploaded (by Spage):
Add Dev namespace on mediawiki.org

https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/187278

Patch-For-Review

In T369#999993, @gerritbot wrote:

Change 187278 had a related patch set uploaded (by Spage):
Add Dev namespace on mediawiki.org

https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/187278

That adds "Dev" namespace and "Dev_talk". That namespace will provide a place for pages making up a "hub for developers and researchers interested in Wikimedia data and the APIs to interact with it."

We could also use namespaces to:

• Use a different skin so we can have more pleasing pages in this area.
• Hold additional kinds of developer documentation (writing extensions, MW architecture, etc.)
• Hold static pages generated from source code
  • such pages would have the license of the source code (mostly GPL, also MIT for VE, etc.) rather than mw.org's CC-BY-SA license.
• Identify related set of pages to search in Special:Search.

but let's take it one step at a time ;)

In T369#999176, @Qgil wrote:

I'd rather keep the scope of this namespace to developer documentation. Mixing Help namespace will get messy. If we want to use CC0 for this, we can always do it.

Developer documentation is already in the Manual: namespace then.

The primary audience of this namespace are developers and researchers interested in Wikimedia data and the APIs to interact with it. Manual: is "a technical manual for the MediaWiki software. It contains information for developers and system administrators on installing, managing and developing for the MediaWiki software." A different thing.

API: probably has more overlapping content, but it is better to start with a new namespace. I think it is very important to have the new developer hub in mediawiki.org, but I also think it is very important to start with a clean house. A Dev: namespace provides this possibility. We can create new content there (starting with a landing page) and we can move good docs in other parts of mediawiki.org as soon as they are polished.

In T303#1013941, @Qgil wrote:

@Spage is focusing on prototyping through the creation of actual content in mediawiki.org, under the API: namespace. From there we can decide what's next.

In T369#1000085, @Spage wrote:

That adds "Dev" namespace and "Dev_talk". That namespace will provide a place for pages making up a "hub for developers and researchers interested in Wikimedia data and the APIs to interact with it."

"Dev" it is, then?

Being a new namespace, I wonder whether we need to go through a mediawiki.org community review process. In any case, in order to achieve T101441 we need to have consensus, say by ECT-July-2015.

Weird thing. If it's not developer documentation, then it's for main namespace; if main namespace suddenly became unsuitable for this sort of stuff, we have a problem.

On the other hand, it's fine to have yet another namespace, just because it's easy to eventually kill it.

The majority of the Main namespace contains information that is not relevant for developers willing to develop their own applications using Wikimedia APIs and data. This is why we want that documentation in a specific namespace. What you call "kill it" could be read as "migrate it" somewhere else if staying mediawiki.org doesn't make sense down the road. Keeping a door open for that potential scenario works for me as well.

Another reason to have a separate namespace is so Flow can be enabled by default on dev_talk pages. Third-party developers using our data and APIs shouldn't have to learn wikitext to discuss them. I'll modify the patch.

Another reason to have a separate namespace is so Flow can be enabled by default on dev_talk pages.

Is there consensus for this somewhere on mediawiki.org? https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Project:Current_issues is the default place where to have such discussions.

@Nemo_bis, this is a good point. In T101441 we have mentioned that consensus with the mediawiki.org is a dependency, but we haven't got into the details yet. As soon as T307: Announcing the Developer Hub prototype release is completed we will start working on the steps to discuss and eventually obtain that consensus.

In T369#1397757, @Nemo_bis wrote:

Another reason to have a separate namespace is so Flow can be enabled by default on dev_talk pages.

Is there consensus for this somewhere on mediawiki.org? https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Project:Current_issues is the default place where to have such discussions.

I created a Adding a dev namespace for "Data and developer hub" articles topic (linked to this bug) for discussion and a "heads up" about a dev: namespace.

The reason to use Flow on the articles' talk pages is pretty clear: the audience for them (third-party developers whom we want to encourage to use Wikimedia data and APIs) are not MediaWiki hackers or even wiki editors. So wikitext talk pages are an unexpected huge barrier to participation. It's the same rationale for using Flow on talk pages of Beta Features (here, here, and elsewhere), Content translation, and Phabricator/Help; we want to solicit feedback and encourage discussion from an audience beyond expert wikipedians.

I have just proposed to NOT create a new Dev: namespace and to improve the existing Api: namespace instead. Your feedback is welcome in the thread at mediawiki.org.

Change 187278 abandoned by Alex Monk:
Add Dev namespace on mediawiki.org

Reason:
Task declined.

https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/187278