OSDev.org

What is our official stance on private project pages in the user namespace? In recent weeks, I've left several comments to the effect that I don't think they belong in the OSDev Wiki, because we aren't a "project hoster", and because I feel that the cluttering of metapages (like RecentChanges) isn't helpful. But I don't want to be nagging about something that doesn't have consent. So what's your take on it?

IMO the host have total right to make decision(either allow and plan for additional resources, or disallow otherwise) as it will affect resource usage(especially bandwidth) and thus the serving quality of the site.
I voted a no.

I think an equally interesting question is:

What qualifies as project hosting and what does not?
Or if you want:
What qualifies as abusing the wiki for project hosting and what does not?

I do have quite an amount of material in my personal wikispace, stuff I copied, backed up, niche subjects, research I've done and a whole lot of other braindumps. Many of it is a consequence of my own project which blurs the boundary of contribution, blog, documentation and whatever you want. Still, its been there for several years now and I hope someone has found it useful.


But hosting an entire project does not demonstrate its usefulness as an development information source, and I think the author has something to explain about his intents.

Static storage isn't half as bad. It's just sitting there.

What is irritating for me is when I look at the RecentChanges (which I visit regularly for "quality checking"), and half the entries are on one or two pages in user namespace, on subjects only losely connected to OSDev, where the user is (ab?-) using the Wiki as some kind of progress diary / project documentation.

Shouldn't someone ask chase about this before starting a poll?

Love4Boobies wrote:Shouldn't someone ask chase about this before starting a poll?

Of course Chase has veto rights. However:
- He is more likely to cater for the community within good reason
- Chase's decision, if any, doesn't influence the question whether or not it is desirable to have project pages integral to the wiki, as opposed to a (potential) dedicated section of the site.


Personally I'm still missing the 3rd option to this poll.

Fair enough. I have voted "no" for the point that Solar made regarding the wiki's "Recent changes" link. But that doesn't mean I don't think it's an interesting idea to host OS projects on OSDev.org---just not on the wiki, unless someone comes up with a solution to this problem.

I think this is specifically targeted to me.

I'm sorry if I'm abusing the system or annoying other users, that was never my intention. I'll migrate this over to my own website instead.

Voted "no", because I think that OSDev is a public resource and any project that developed enough may (and should) have it's own resource.

No real opinion, so no vote. But isn't it generally considered acceptable for users to put anything within reason in their own private namespace?

Would it be possible to limit how many edits can occur within a given period of time, to avoid spamming "Recent Changes"?

MessiahAndrw wrote:I think this is specifically targeted to me.

You're just the latest in a list of people who did it. I didn't "target" this at anyone; I wanted feedback on what the general opinion on the matter is (i.e., whether I should rather shut up).

Brynet-Inc wrote:But isn't it generally considered acceptable for users to put anything within reason in their own private namespace?

Every Wiki has its own rules, but if you refer to Wikipedia, they rule thusly:

Wikipedia:User pages wrote:User pages are pages in the User and User talk namespaces, and are useful for organizing and aiding the work users do on Wikipedia, and facilitating interaction and sharing between users. User pages mainly are for interpersonal discussion, notices, testing and drafts, and, if desired, limited autobiographical and personal content. User pages are available to Wikipedia users personally for purposes compatible with the Wikipedia project and acceptable to the community; Wikipedia is not a blog, webspace provider, or social networking site.

That was the position I was taking when I started leaving comments to that end.

I voted no, such things belong on places like http://quokforge.org/