This article is a stub. You can help by expanding it.
Current State of MediaWiki
|This section of this page needs fact-checking and development. Please help with citations and feel free to make edits and changes. Please discuss at Talk:MediaWiki.|
The MediaWiki platform has been a key to Wikimedia's success, enabling Wikimedia projects to become a top five web site.
MediaWiki has some weaknesses:
|MediaWiki platform has been key to Wikimedia’s success…||*Software supports mass collaboration enabling Wikipedia to become a top five website |
* Popular and successful wiki software program
|…but software has key weaknesses . . .||* Lack of policies and support has led to inconsistent and poorly written code that does not effectively support current Internet trends |
*MediaWiki has limited documentation
|…which inhibit further development and future potential of software||* Efficiency of efforts to improve and add new functionalities to MediaWiki is inhibited by inconsistent and poor code |
* Difficult to work with volunteer developers to improve the core platform
- As with most open source software projects, some of the code contributions are inconsistent and poorly written.
- Coding standards are now documented (mostly) at mw:Manual:Coding conventions. Forcing compliance is a bit harder.
- MediaWiki's documentation is limited. The lack of documentation makes it difficult to leverage volunteer developers.
- Code documentation is improving, auto-generated at . MediaWiki.org needs a focused cleanup effort
- Efficiency of efforts to improve and add new functionality to MediaWiki is inhibited by inconsistent and poor code.
The core user interface has major limitations. See usability for a longer discussion of these issues.
Ongoing development of Wikimedia's software platform has been slowed by gaps in capacity:
|Leadership Gap||* Foundation currently lacks a CTO to oversee technical staff and set direction for the project|
|Limited number of paid staff||* WMF has 5 core developers plus 5-6 FTEs working on a 1 year usability grant, significantly less than organizations with smaller audiences and contributor bases:
|Under-utilized volunteer developers||* Insufficient paid staff to review volunteer code |
* Insufficient resources and poor process to identify promising extensions and widgets developed by volunteers and make them accessible to casual users
* Don’t effectively attract and retain new volunteer developers