From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki


How are we going to make sure that these programs are secure and don't violate our users' privacy? πr2 (t • c) 03:13, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

a) by limiting it to HTML5 and JavaScript (if users are worried about JavaScript, they should deactivate JavaScript in their browser) and b) by the same mechanisms that ensure that any content in Wikipedia is correct. --Martin Kraus (talk) 08:33, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
JavaScript can do malicious things. I don't think we should be loading untrusted JS that could compromise someone's account or crash their browser (intentionally). There should be code review before anything is shown to end-users, although perhaps we may allow users to view unreviewed code at their own risk. PiRSquared17 (talk) 12:10, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps we could include a warning before letting users access unreviewed code. --Martin Kraus (talk) 23:26, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Are we going to host a source code repository? Why not just use one of these? πr2 (t • c) 03:14, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it would be one of many open-source software repositories; like Wikipedia is one of many collaborative online encyclopedias. The difference in both cases is that Wikipedia is and WikiApps would be based on Mediawiki. --Martin Kraus (talk) 08:33, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with WikiCode?[edit]

WikiApps could be limited to webapps, i.e. apps using HTML5 and JavaScript, while WikiCode could cover all other languages. --Martin Kraus (talk) 00:32, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My thoughts exactly. Why limit the scope so much? - Ypnypn (talk) 19:46, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Limiting the scope to HTML5 web apps would allow us to move forward with this project without having to deal with other programming languages and various operating systems. Furthermore, HTML5 web apps are different from most other programming languages because they can be executed within most web browers. IMHO this technical difference justifies a separate wiki project for them. --Martin Kraus (talk) 23:26, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]


At last it's rejected. That tagline would not fit