Before anybody potentially proceeds on the technical site of this request:
It needs to be clear and documented that planning and legal parts between involved parties have been sorted out.

I have some concern about the maintenance burden for this. We have no capacity to maintain custom extensions for this; we're generally trying to make sure all our sites will work well on HTTPS & mobile, which would be extra effort; we'd have to incorporate this wiki into our deployment train, etc.

Beyond this, this could create the impression that OpenZIM is a WMF project, which it is not. All our existing wikis are either under the governance of the communities, or in the case of some chapter wikis, of a recognized Wikimedia chapter. Here we'd be delegating governance to an external project community.

A smaller issue is that the wiki is under GFDL 1.2, which is a content license we no longer support as a primary license.

Overall my recommendation would be to continue to host this externally (if necessary by paying a third party MW hoster) to avoid those complications.

@erik

• We need a simple Mediawiki with nothing special, no custom extension.
• About HTTPS, if the WMF needs absolutely a valid certificate, I can have a look to this problem.
• About mobile support, not sure to understand what is exactly the problem with the openZIM Mediawiki. Do we have to tweak the wiki code?
• openZIM has always been since its creation sponsored and leaded by WMCH members and I see no reason to change that in a near future.
• There is no license problem, the wiki was edited by only a few people who are agree to switch to CC.

I think it would be good to have this wiki at the WMF because:

• Situation would be clear: bugzilla, Git and Website are hosted in the same place
• For you this is a new line in a maintenance script, for us this is a real work to keep such a website running.

openZIM has been until now a Wikimedia driven project, although it's true it's not a WMF one. This is not a new project, this is a project which has already proven to offer an added value. For these reasons I'm a little bit surprised to read something like the paragraph 2 in your message.

Hi Emmanuel,

my suggestion to you would be to subsume the content in openzim.org under mediawiki.org. All other Wikimedia-related tech projects either have their own self-hosted sites or have pages on mediawiki.org. We can redirect openzim.org to mediawiki.org/wiki/OpenZIM and use subpages to organize. Since we're only talking about a relatively small set of pages total, that seems a more justifiable approach than setting up a new production WMF wiki, and avoids the maintenance and governance issues.

I know you'll feel that this takes away from the promotional quality of having your own site. I'm somewhat dubious of that, actually, given that OpenZIM is a highly technical project, and folks who care about it will likely not have an issue landing on a technical page. Either way, that's the only approach I'm comfortable signing off on at this time, and I do feel that's a fair response, as it's the identical response we'd give to virtually any relevant open source project asking for their own wiki.

Resolving this to wontfix for now.

Thank you Erik for your feedback, although this of course not what I was hoping.

The workaround with the Mediawiki wiki is a valid one, but I prefer not to "devaluate" symbolically the value of the project by migrating the pages there. In addition, it's important IMO that people understand the ZIM is neither related to Mediawiki nor to the wiki in general.

So, the only one solution left is hosting and maintain the wiki by myself. I will do that and have updated the temporary/old Mediawiki instance to a new&clean one.