Add Wikimedia Foundation to adoption.rst #96
Conversation
| * `StrongLoop/LoopBack <https://loopback.io/doc/en/lb4>`_ by IBM | ||
| * `TerminusDB <https://terminusdb.com/docs/terminusdb/#/>`_ | ||
| * Tesla Motors (internal) | ||
| * `Wikimedia Foundation <https://www.wikimedia.org/>`_, technical documentation for Wikimedia projects and open-source software |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Did you mean to link to https://www.mediawiki.org? I don't see any technical documentation at https://www.wikimedia.org, let alone docs conforming to the Diátaxis framework.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Because the technical documentation for Wikimedia projects is scattered across many wikis and other platforms, it seemed most succinct to link to that page because it links to all the many projects. I guess I also thought the goal was to link to the organization's website, not a specific set of documentation. That said, maybe a link to developer.wikimedia.org would be better?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
technical documentation for Wikimedia projects is scattered across many wikis and other platforms
Right, it's quite scattered, but I also think much of it doesn't conform to the Diátaxis framework, so it probably would be helpful to highlight specific Wikimedia docs that do adhere to it. Are there many that do? 🤔
There was a problem hiding this comment.
We are working on it! Diátaxis is the framework we're using for all our doc work and education about tech writing: https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Documentation/Toolkit.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
That's great to hear! So I probably would suggest linking to the toolkit page in this PR (or better yet, the "Templates for common document types" section directly), unless there is a particular instance of Wikimedia docs already structured that way that you think would be worth highlighting. Otherwise, just linking to wikimedia.org seems like it might confuse people who actually follow the link expecting to see usage of the framework there.
2 participants
No description provided.