Difference between revisions of "User:Panos Alevropoulos/test"
(add personal test page) |
|||
| (15 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
This a page I am using to test some potential changes to the FSD. | This a page I am using to test some potential changes to the FSD. | ||
| + | |||
| + | ==The great revamp== | ||
| + | * [[User:Panos_Alevropoulos/test/Revamp|Revamp]] | ||
| + | |||
| + | ==Test subpages== | ||
| + | Core pages (top priority): | ||
| + | * [[User:Panos_Alevropoulos/test/Requirements|Requirements]] | ||
| + | * [[User:Panos_Alevropoulos/test/Entry|Entry]] | ||
| + | * [[User:Panos_Alevropoulos/test/Participate|Participate]] | ||
| + | * [[User:Panos_Alevropoulos/test/License check|License check]] | ||
| + | |||
| + | Other pages: | ||
| + | * [[User:Panos_Alevropoulos/test/Antifeatures|Antifeatures]] | ||
| + | * [[User:Panos_Alevropoulos/test/Template|Template]] | ||
| + | * [[User:Panos_Alevropoulos/test/Semantic MediaWiki|Semantic MediaWiki]] | ||
==Frontpage== | ==Frontpage== | ||
| Line 19: | Line 34: | ||
** Participation guide (FSD page contribution manual) | ** Participation guide (FSD page contribution manual) | ||
** Style guide (mediawiki practices, make FSD more uniform and consistent) | ** Style guide (mediawiki practices, make FSD more uniform and consistent) | ||
| − | ** Freedom check (check | + | ** Freedom check (check licenses) |
** Join a team (list all teams here) | ** Join a team (list all teams here) | ||
** License activism (convince projects to use free software licenses or use correct licensing practice) | ** License activism (convince projects to use free software licenses or use correct licensing practice) | ||
[Rebranded FSD meeting notice] | [Rebranded FSD meeting notice] | ||
| + | |||
| + | * [[User:Tradar|Tradar]] suggested an FSD banner to be used for a program to link back to the FSD. | ||
==Sidebar== | ==Sidebar== | ||
| Line 34: | Line 51: | ||
I propose the following templates, like on ESP Wiki: | I propose the following templates, like on ESP Wiki: | ||
* Deletion candidate (state reason) | * Deletion candidate (state reason) | ||
| − | |||
* Vague licensing information (urge license activism) | * Vague licensing information (urge license activism) | ||
| − | * Incorrect or outdated information | + | * Incorrect or outdated information (ask for help) |
| + | * [[User:Panos_Alevropoulos/test/Antifeatures|Antifeatures]] (anything wrong with entries that are otherwise eligible for FSD inclusion) | ||
| + | |||
| + | ==Other== | ||
| + | * I do not understand what the review process is for some very complex projects, e.g. [[Chromium]]. The review pages seem confusing and the end user is only greeted with a "Antifeature: Evaluation" template, the wording of which doesn't make sense. The end user needs clear answers: | ||
| + | ** Yes, it's free software with or without antifeatures. | ||
| + | ** No, it's not free software. But in this case, I believe the project should still be on the directory (probably under a different category/namespace) and explicitly explain why it's not free software. This should only be done for popular projects marketed as "open source", e.g. most [[Electron]] apps. | ||
| + | ** Under review. Should direct to review page / discussion page. | ||
| + | * The FSD has some translated pages, but they are implemented incorrectly. Translations of pages should appear on the sidebar like Wikipedia. We shouldn't create pages with language codes like "Page" for English and "Page.fr" for French. | ||
| + | * Can we disable the approval system for user pages? | ||
| + | * Currently, the [https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Editor#Former clasic editor] is used. We need the newer [https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:WikiEditor WikiEditor]. | ||
| + | * The FSD should also be used to identify where free software is lacking. In a recent talk, RMS stressed that we especially need free software where it doesn't exist. | ||
| + | * The FSD should link collections to the [https://libreplanet.org/wiki/Group:Freedom_Ladder Freedom Ladder campaign]. | ||
| + | * Maybe we should list rejected packages in a useful way. A separate template for such pages could work. | ||
| + | * [https://repology.org/ Repology's API] might be useful for tracking package versions | ||
| + | * We could use bots to help us sanitize some entries. | ||
| + | ** Signal if there are broken links. | ||
| + | |||
| + | ==Resources== | ||
| + | * /licensing/fsd/fsd-improvement-page/ | ||
| + | * /users/michael/license-activism/ | ||
| + | * /sysadmin/projects/directory-improvements/ | ||
| + | * /licensing/tools/ | ||
| + | * /tools/ | ||
Latest revision as of 19:06, 22 February 2023
This a page I am using to test some potential changes to the FSD.
The great revamp
Test subpages
Core pages (top priority):
Other pages:
Frontpage
3d free software directory text (on click, send to Free_Software_Directory:About
"A collaborative catalog of free software"
"Free as in freedom, not as in free beer" tag line
[BUTTONS:]
- Browse [HEADING]
- All entries (all categories)
- All collections
- Free software replacements
- High priority entries
- Random entry
- Contribute (guides on how to contribute) [HEADING]
- Participation guide (FSD page contribution manual)
- Style guide (mediawiki practices, make FSD more uniform and consistent)
- Freedom check (check licenses)
- Join a team (list all teams here)
- License activism (convince projects to use free software licenses or use correct licensing practice)
[Rebranded FSD meeting notice]
- Tradar suggested an FSD banner to be used for a program to link back to the FSD.
Sidebar
- Add new entry
- Add new collection
- Entries pending approval
- Backlog (is this useful?)
Templates
I propose the following templates, like on ESP Wiki:
- Deletion candidate (state reason)
- Vague licensing information (urge license activism)
- Incorrect or outdated information (ask for help)
- Antifeatures (anything wrong with entries that are otherwise eligible for FSD inclusion)
Other
- I do not understand what the review process is for some very complex projects, e.g. Chromium. The review pages seem confusing and the end user is only greeted with a "Antifeature: Evaluation" template, the wording of which doesn't make sense. The end user needs clear answers:
- Yes, it's free software with or without antifeatures.
- No, it's not free software. But in this case, I believe the project should still be on the directory (probably under a different category/namespace) and explicitly explain why it's not free software. This should only be done for popular projects marketed as "open source", e.g. most Electron apps.
- Under review. Should direct to review page / discussion page.
- The FSD has some translated pages, but they are implemented incorrectly. Translations of pages should appear on the sidebar like Wikipedia. We shouldn't create pages with language codes like "Page" for English and "Page.fr" for French.
- Can we disable the approval system for user pages?
- Currently, the clasic editor is used. We need the newer WikiEditor.
- The FSD should also be used to identify where free software is lacking. In a recent talk, RMS stressed that we especially need free software where it doesn't exist.
- The FSD should link collections to the Freedom Ladder campaign.
- Maybe we should list rejected packages in a useful way. A separate template for such pages could work.
- Repology's API might be useful for tracking package versions
- We could use bots to help us sanitize some entries.
- Signal if there are broken links.
Resources
- /licensing/fsd/fsd-improvement-page/
- /users/michael/license-activism/
- /sysadmin/projects/directory-improvements/
- /licensing/tools/
- /tools/
Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.3 or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation; with no Invariant Sections, no Front-Cover Texts, and no Back-Cover Texts. A copy of the license is included in the page “GNU Free Documentation License”.
The copyright and license notices on this page only apply to the text on this page. Any software or copyright-licenses or other similar notices described in this text has its own copyright notice and license, which can usually be found in the distribution or license text itself.