Best practices in evaluating new software
|The following page documents a Meta-Wiki guideline.|
It is a generally accepted standard that users should follow, though it should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception. When editing this page, please ensure that your revision reflects consensus. When in doubt, discuss on the talk page, Babel or at RfC.
With limited exception, user-facing software chosen by the Wikimedia Foundation should follow the principle that the code would be able to pass Wikimedia's standard code review process. This means that the software chosen or developed to add a new site/service or enhance an existing one will:
- be free and open source;
- conform to Wikimedia's values (global audience, no privacy-invading analytics software, etc.);
- have a localizable, internationalized user interface;
- more in general, scale beyond the initial goals without bias (e.g. not USA-specific, not locked into a single wiki/project);
- not reinvent the wheel/duplicate existing friend efforts for similar goals (e.g. extensions must use MediaWiki's standard frameworks as much as possible, we won't create a competitor of LibreOffice, we probably won't try to duplicate phpBB or LiquidFeedback within MediaWiki);
- ideally, as byproduct of our needs and of any non insignificant effort, also set a standard and offer reusable components and libraries to other free culture projects.