Talk:Socialtext/Archive 1
 | This is an archive of past discussions about Socialtext. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 |
Kwiki page is being considered for deletion
See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kwiki, may be you would like to prevent that. Vjdchauhan 06:58, 24 January 2007 (UTC).
Open Source
Socialtext Open wiki is hosted at http://sourceforge.net/projects/socialtext/ and the license is listed as Mozilla Public License 1.1 (MPL 1.1). This is not the case, the current license is called "Socialtext Public License" and includes clauses that make it not compatible with MPL nor compatible with any other open source license. Foolswisdom 18:21, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
- Uhhh, yeah... isn't that what the paragraph said? I'll move it here so we can discuss it more easily. (I'm also going to make a minor change to the passage so it is clearer and incorporates your recent edit.)
- Socialtext is an enterprise wiki and weblog based on Kwiki.[1] It is available as a hosted service, a hardware appliance, or just the source code.[2] The source code version is not considered open source[3] as the Socialtext Public License[4] has not been approved by the Open Source Initiative.[5]
- I think this more accurately represents the current "'open' source, but not really 'free'" issues as well as providing references to further explain the situation. Thoughts? PaulC/T+ 20:17, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
- Open Source has a fairly specific, widely accepted definition. The "STPL" license itself is not approved and it is not compatible with any Open Source license then at this time, therefore it is not Open Source. Socialtext is currently working on getting a revised version of their license approved. I think the text "source code version" is currently most accurate. Foolswisdom 22:02, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I understand that. I'm being pedantic, but "opened source" is clearly different than "open source". "Source code version" works too, and I'm fine with that, but I'm more curious as to why you removed the second sentence of my addition with the included references about the STPL and reasoning for not being "open source". In addition, Socialtext CALLS the product "open source", therefore it would make sense to address this in the article rather than just calling it by some other slightly different name and assuming people will know there is a reason why it isn't being called "open source". Yes? PaulC/T+ 02:00, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry, I misread your proposal above. I think your current edit represents the status well. "opened source" is not a meaning term could would confused people or led people to think we were misdirecting them. Socialtext can call it Open Source" or whatever it wants, but it does not make it so -- general agreement by the public and communities is necessary. As I write, your current text is very good. Thank you Foolswisdom 04:48, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
- Opened source is a fine term. To engineers, open source has a rigidly defined meaning. To most people, it's a buzz word that means firefrox, google, unix, linux, java stuff. Is there a better term for Socialtext's software? Mathiastck 08:13, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
References
- ^ Pastore, Michael (2005-10-05). "SocialText Opens Up Code to Promote Wikis". Intranet Journal. Retrieved 2007-02-11.
{{cite news}}: Check date values in:|date=(help) - ^ http://sourceforge.net/projects/socialtext/
- ^ http://blogs.zdnet.com/BTL/index.php?p=3430
- ^ http://www.socialtext.net/stoss/index.cgi/spl100.pdf?action=attachments_download;page_name=socialtext_open_source_wiki;id=20060725230840-0
- ^ http://www.socialtext.net/stoss/index.cgi?for_approval_socialtext_public_license_stpl
[Mobile Wiki]
I was lead here, because I was looked for a wiki dedicated to cell phone technology, and or viewable from a cell phone, and designed to be edited by a cell phone. Wikipedia has a Personal computer bias. I've been accused as a troll for navigating my pc the same way i navigate my cell phone. I'd use wikipedia on my cell phone more, if the social structure of wikipedia didn't prevent it. The code could be optimized a bit for mobile, but meanwhile mobile browsers are improving their browser, so in time, it won't be needed. Mathiastck 06:16, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
- Anyway, it sounds like [socialtext] is best known for having a mobile optimized wiki. My source is running a google search for "wiki for mobile." Mathiastck 06:17, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
- Socialtext does have a mobile optimized site but I would not consider it their best know feature. The advances in mobile browsing make optimized sites a bit overrated now a days. Socialtext is mainly a, for business, wiki and the mobile site has such reduced functionality that it serves as nothing more than an overview of activity. I think the Socialtext Desktop application is what separates Socialtext from other wikis. It runs as an Adobe Air app and allows users to break out of browser only interaction with their wiki. Things like "pop-up" notifications and automatic login at boot help increase user adoption which is a crucial part of a successful wiki.--Lar5000 (talk) 15:02, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
Socialtext no longer exists, according to former board member
Jimmy Wales states that "Socialtext no longer exists", so either this is a ghost of a website, or Jimmy Wales is starting to lose it. Maybe someone can check in on Mr. Wales once in a while, keep him company, you know? - 2001:558:1400:10:DD57:6356:A8FF:8049 (talk) 14:32, 7 August 2013 (UTC)