Last modified: 2014-04-05 19:44:33 UTC

Wikimedia Bugzilla is closed!

Wikimedia has migrated from Bugzilla to Phabricator. Bug reports should be created and updated in Wikimedia Phabricator instead. Please create an account in Phabricator and add your Bugzilla email address to it.
Wikimedia Bugzilla is read-only. If you try to edit or create any bug report in Bugzilla you will be shown an intentional error message.
In order to access the Phabricator task corresponding to a Bugzilla report, just remove "static-" from its URL.
You could still run searches in Bugzilla or access your list of votes but bug reports will obviously not be up-to-date in Bugzilla.
Bug 11190 - Chat rooms for individual pages
Chat rooms for individual pages
Status: RESOLVED WONTFIX
Product: MediaWiki extensions
Classification: Unclassified
Extensions requests (Other open bugs)
unspecified
All All
: Lowest enhancement with 1 vote (vote)
: ---
Assigned To: Nobody - You can work on this!
http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Pr...
:
: 29642 57507 (view as bug list)
Depends on:
Blocks:
  Show dependency treegraph
 
Reported: 2007-09-05 06:48 UTC by Eylon
Modified: 2014-04-05 19:44 UTC (History)
11 users (show)

See Also:
Web browser: ---
Mobile Platform: ---
Assignee Huggle Beta Tester: ---


Attachments

Description Eylon 2007-09-05 06:48:12 UTC
Hi

While using wikipedia I thought that a chat room for each entry could bring a lot of  benefit to the users.
The chat room can be the ideal meeting place for certain subjects and can stimulate discussion and refine the value in wikiepedia.
The idea can be elaborated even more, creating a forum for each value...

Regards
Eylon Katz
Comment 1 Platonides 2007-09-05 12:38:34 UTC
That's the purpose of talk pages. If you were to talk to people wanting to chat about article Foo, you wouldn't find anyone. If you want to put everybody reading the article on Foo chat, it'd be unmanageable (and people won't like that). Although some more synchornization with the irc channels could be good, I don't see future for your proposal.
Comment 2 MZMcBride 2008-10-20 08:21:43 UTC
Resolving this as WONTFIX.

All editable pages have talk pages where issues / concerns / etc. can be discussed. To create a chat room-type system for each page would be unimaginable.

There are a variety of outlets for discussion of Wikipedia and its content, including IRC (the #wikipedia channel on irc.freenode.net is a good start). But to have a system of what could be thousands or millions of individual chat rooms is simply never going to happen.
Comment 3 Platonides 2009-08-07 13:35:44 UTC
Followers of this bug will be interested in http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Proposals/Real-time_chat
Comment 4 Monomium 2010-09-15 01:20:05 UTC
Actually, if the channels were organized by topic, then we wouldn't have 3 million, but perhaps 40. If there was interest, the channel number could grow and cover more specific topics. I'd start with channels (or chatrooms or whatever you want to call them) for:

Culture · Geography · Health · History · Mathematics · Natural sciences · People · Philosophy · Religion · Society · Technology

Any thoughts?
Comment 5 Max Semenik 2010-09-15 09:35:50 UTC
There's already IRC. There's even an extension that allows to use it from on-wiki interface. Therefore, adding yet another method of chat would result in multiplying entities beyond necessity. Don't forget that all means of communication in 
MediaWiki is there to achieve one goal: collaboration, not random chit-chat. And real-time chatting is much less convenient for that exact purpose.

Not a snowball's chance in hell that we'll ever implement it.
Comment 6 Monomium 2010-09-15 22:50:06 UTC
This really isn't that difficult. Could you link to that extension?

*In my opinion, this is a simple matter of connecting to IRC and adding a tab.
*Wikinews added an opinions tab; this can't be that difficult.
*This really is a community decision, not a developer decision.
*Who told you it was "random chit-chat" was the only use?

(In reply to comment #5)
> There's already IRC. There's even an extension that allows to use it from
> on-wiki interface. Therefore, adding yet another method of chat would result in
> multiplying entities beyond necessity. Don't forget that all means of
> communication in 
> MediaWiki is there to achieve one goal: collaboration, not random chit-chat.
> And real-time chatting is much less convenient for that exact purpose.
> 
> Not a snowball's chance in hell that we'll ever implement it.
Comment 7 Bawolff (Brian Wolff) 2010-09-15 22:57:50 UTC
>*This really is a community decision, not a developer decision.

That is totally different. The opinion tab is just a talk page.

>*In my opinion, this is a simple matter of connecting to IRC and adding a tab.

Its a tad more complicated than that, but that is more or less what you do. However I do not believe difficulty is the issue, more there is philosophical issues.

>Could you link to that extension?

There are many (although a lot of them suck). You know there is a search button -
http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Category:Chat_extensions

>*This really is a community decision, not a developer decision.

Thats debatable, however i don't see any links to community consensus either.
Comment 8 Chad H. 2010-09-15 22:59:11 UTC
(In reply to comment #6)
> This really isn't that difficult. Could you link to that extension?
> 

http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:WebChat

> *In my opinion, this is a simple matter of connecting to IRC and adding a tab.
> *Wikinews added an opinions tab; this can't be that difficult.

Adding a tab is easy. We're not objecting because it's hard to do.

> *This really is a community decision, not a developer decision.

Fair enough, but without a pretty strong community consensus for this you'll be hard pressed to find a developer to implement it. Even then, it might not get implemented anytime soon (unless it is something the Foundation wants and can put paid developers behind).
Comment 9 Monomium 2010-09-15 23:03:17 UTC
The WebChat extension is useless, if you want to use Freenode (all the WM channels are there) as Freenode blocks Mibbit.

This is a "featured proposal" at http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Proposal:Real-time_chat the Strategy Wiki; we'll have to see where that goes.

(In reply to comment #8)
> (In reply to comment #6)
> > This really isn't that difficult. Could you link to that extension?
> > 
> 
> http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:WebChat
> 
> > *In my opinion, this is a simple matter of connecting to IRC and adding a tab.
> > *Wikinews added an opinions tab; this can't be that difficult.
> 
> Adding a tab is easy. We're not objecting because it's hard to do.
> 
> > *This really is a community decision, not a developer decision.
> 
> Fair enough, but without a pretty strong community consensus for this you'll be
> hard pressed to find a developer to implement it. Even then, it might not get
> implemented anytime soon (unless it is something the Foundation wants and can
> put paid developers behind).
Comment 10 Monomium 2010-09-15 23:03:51 UTC
The WebChat extension is useless, if you want to use Freenode (all the WM channels are there) as Freenode blocks Mibbit.

This is a "featured proposal" at http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Proposal:Real-time_chat the Strategy Wiki; we'll have to see where that goes.

(In reply to comment #8)
> (In reply to comment #6)
> > This really isn't that difficult. Could you link to that extension?
> > 
> 
> http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:WebChat
> 
> > *In my opinion, this is a simple matter of connecting to IRC and adding a tab.
> > *Wikinews added an opinions tab; this can't be that difficult.
> 
> Adding a tab is easy. We're not objecting because it's hard to do.
> 
> > *This really is a community decision, not a developer decision.
> 
> Fair enough, but without a pretty strong community consensus for this you'll be
> hard pressed to find a developer to implement it. Even then, it might not get
> implemented anytime soon (unless it is something the Foundation wants and can
> put paid developers behind).
Comment 11 Platonides 2011-06-29 13:28:23 UTC
*** Bug 29642 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Comment 12 Andre Klapper 2014-01-02 11:32:40 UTC
*** Bug 57507 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.


Navigation
Links