Talk:Wiki

	Wiki was one of the good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones Date Process Result June 16, 2024 [[Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Archived nominations/Index/June 2004#Wiki|Featured article candidate]] Not promoted ? Good article nominee Listed ? Good article reassessment Delisted This article was on the Article Collaboration and Improvement Drive for the week of May 9, 2024. Current status: Delisted good article
Warning: invalid date 'unknown' detected in parameter 'action2date' (help). Warning: invalid date 'unknown' detected in parameter 'action3date' (help).

	Spoken Wikipedia
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles that are spoken on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Spoken WikipediaWikipedia:WikiProject Spoken WikipediaTemplate:WikiProject Spoken WikipediaSpoken Wikipedia articles

Template:FAOL

This page has been cited as a source by a notable professional or academic publication: Stvilia, B. et al. Information Quality Discussions in Wikipedia. University of Illinois U-C.

 |requests=
 |copyedit=
 |wikify=
 |merge=
 |split=
 |verify=
 |cleanup=
 |expand=
 |disambiguation=
 |stubs=
 |update=
 |npov=
 |infobox=
 |other=

Archives

/Archive 1 (up to mid June 2006) /Archive 2 (mid June 2006 to end of January 2007)

Vandalism is happening because Googling 'wiki' which previously brought up the main page as the first hit now points to this page. 84.68.195.64 11:51, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No it isn't.

This issue has been fixed. Harryboyles 09:42, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No it hasn't 66.97.203.30 13:18, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it has Harryboyles

Yup. This article is still the first result when one Googles "Wiki". 64.121.36.5 00:28, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It should bring up this page. If people google "wiki" after all, one expects they're looking for information on the word, not for the Wikipedia Main Page. -- SCZenz 00:33, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And it is SO hard for anyone to click on the link to the Main page in the navigation bar to the left? 01:38 15 April 2007

Maybe it is... *frowns* (-Kid. 12:30, 4 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]

My 2 cents: Would it not be possible to have people coming from google redirect to the main page (with a redirect header maybe). After all, the statistics imply that the vast majority of people googling "wiki" are not looking for a page with information on the term "wiki". I for one usually come into Wikipedia through this page having typed "wiki" in the firefox address bar (the equivilent of "I'm feeling lucky" in google btw).

It depends on where you access the page from. For example look for "secreto" in google.com from a machine located in Chile and then do the same but through a proxy located somewhere else. The results will be the same, but in another order...

How will we ever fix vandalism on wiki?

I have deleted this discussion because this talk page is not for discussing the pros and cons of Wikipedia, it is for discussing how to improve the Wiki article on Wikipedia. Please note the difference between Wiki and Wikipedia. Wiki is NOT short for Wikipedia.—greenrd 00:02, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi all,

I am delisting this article as a good article because I feel it does not conform to the well-written requirement of the good article criteria. My problems with the article are pretty much entirely focused on the lead, so they should not be too hard to fix. Specifically:

• The term "*A template" is introduced without proper explanation of the term (or a wikilink).
• There is a stray bullet point in the lead.
• Wikitext is quoted and italicised in contrast to the Wikipedia manual of style.
• The table, while certainly appropriate and helpful, interrupts the lead (as does its caption attributing the quote).

However my problem is not just with the style of the lead. Overall, I found the lead difficult to read. I think there are probably some good elements in the lead but it needs to be rewritten with a real focus on introducing the article to those who may not be familiar with the subject. Please feel free to renominate the article once these issues have been addressed or you can seek a review if you disagree with my objections.

Cedars 02:41, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I thought a WIKI was the abreviation of "What I Know Is", since people are supposed to post freely about things they know of, and the Wiki takes care of formatting and re-linking pages, so the only concern of the poster was to know what he was writing about.

I find this explanation more meaningful, although maybe it is not historically correct.

Since history is the story that people tell themselves not about how they see their past but about how they see their future (I don't remember where I read this), "What I Know Is" is a much better term.

WiKi is nothing but a database putted on Internet. It can be created by usign simple SQL and PHP..

Could there be an etymological connection between the Hawaiian-Language term “Wiki” and the New England slang “Wicked”?

See Wikipedia article on Wicked as a New England slang term. Common example: “That car is wicked fast.”

See also the Wikipedia article on Hawaiian-language concerning the New England Missionary’s development of the Hawaiian language.

I hear "I'll wiki this" or "Just wiki it to find out..." a lot now. Has anyone else run into this use? SpikeZoft 06:51, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A nominalized form of this verb appears in: Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikify. Some people use "wiki" as an adjective, particularly in negation ("an unwiki page", "an unwiki policy"). The word acts as a modifier in the title: The Wiki Way. --Teratornis 18:48, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From the section History:

"Wiki Wiki" is a reduplication of "wiki", a Hawaiian-language word for fast. The word wiki is a shorter form of wiki wiki (weekie, weekie).

That's contradictory. So is "wiki" a shorter form of "wiki wiki", or is "wiki wiki" a reduplication of "wiki"? What is original, and what is derived? -- 131.111.8.96 01:35, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say it means the term "wiki wiki," as in the bus line and original software WikiWikiWeb, is a reduplication. However (in terms of the software), this would be an awkward name and was thus colloquially shortened to "wiki," coincidentally the original Hawaiian word. akuyume^T_C 02:35, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jasper Carrot also has a sketch in which another guy (can't remember if it's his publicist or someone else) uses the word "wiki" as every single word in his conversation with a chinese waiter. He asks the waiter what the item is and then says "it's wiki". Probably irrelevant, but whenever I think wikipedia it's the first thing I think of :-) SmUX 19:51, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I had just read buried somewhere in Wikipedia that "Wiki" was named after "Twiki" the "know-it-all" talking robot in Buck Rogers. I'm relieved, I guess. Something, somewhere needs to come from something other than nostalgia for US pop culture. (Didn't Gilligan say "wiki" in episode #. . .")

Vagabundus

There is a very interesting article on creating a "sales pitch" for introducing a wiki system at an organization: http://scratchpad.wikia.com/wiki/Wiki_sales_pitch

This article contains

• Basics (definition and history)
• Fields of Application
• Pros & Cons
• Syntax Examples

It's currently hosted by the Wikia Scratchpad, but I believe it should be moved to a more permanent (or prominent) location. Any ideas?

-- F.D. 09:23, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I see it has already moved to http://wikis.wikia.com/wiki/Wiki_sales_pitch .

This is the discussion page for the article wiki, not the subject of the article or the contents of articles on other wikis. Furthermore, Wikipedia is not affiliated with Wikia. This is not the correct place (or even the correct website) for discussion of Wikia pages – Qxz 08:03, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison table of policies and other interesting attributes of general-reference wikis in English (with over 1,000 articles).

Notes: Statistics as of 29jan07. If they are more than 30 days out of date, please update them.

Anonymous - OpenEdit - Anyone can edit content, without registration
Registered only - LoginToEdit - Registration required
GFDL - GNU Free Documentation License[1]
NPOV - Neutral point of view[2]
SPOV - Sympathetic point of view[3]
COI - Conflict of interest[4]

http://en.wikipedia.org/ ... http://www.wikinfo.org/ ... http://www.wikiknowledge.net/wiki/

other: http://opencycle.vacommunity.net/ 61 pages

future questions: Archived by archive.org?

Additional resources: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_wikis ... http://www.wikiindex.org/Wiki_Index

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.87.200.20 (talk) 15:04, 30 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Hmmm. Given that Wikiknowledge doesn't even have an article here (and 1,812 articles isn't a lot, smaller than some fairly obscure language editions of Wikipedia), perhaps that's better avoided. Also, this article is about wikis, not general-reference wikis specifically. A better place for comparisons between different Wikipedia and different encyclopedias is Wikipedia, but that already has an extensive discussion of the subject – Qxz 15:44, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd suggest Citizendium, but since that won't even let you register unless you have a PhD in everything, it's hardly the same sort of project. Perhaps it would be better if any 'comparison' that is made compares a range of wikis used for different purposes. Reference is not the only use of a wiki; the first wikis were communities too, and in some cases that's the main purpose of a wiki. I'm not a great fan of tables when a few paragraphs of text would suffice, either – Qxz 15:47, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why does talk page redirect to this article? —tregoweth (talk) 20:31, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a better suggestion for a target (bearing in mind that redirecting articles to project pages seems to be discouraged)? – Qxz 18:35, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I saw a line appear saying "nerds are still cool" i came back 2 minutes later, and someone must have repaired it —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Paul527 (talk • contribs) 05:03, 12 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Yes, they did. This article gets quite a bit of that, unfortunately, but it's usually fixed quickly – Qxz 18:35, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't see this in the article, how can someone like me start a Wiki? Me and other people at this messageboard would like to start a Wiki where we can decide what the rules and guidelines are, and have articles the way we want. TJ Spyke 05:23, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A number of wiki hosting services are available, some free and some not; see Wiki farm, List of wiki farms and Comparison of wiki farms – Qxz 18:38, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The example of HTML uses the entity " instead of the literal character " several times, making the HTML look more complex than necessary and distorting comparison to the MediaWiki syntax. Why is this necessary? (The question disappeared into the archive without an answer.) --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 18:16, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No idea. I've changed it; if anyone does have a good explanation for it being how it was, feel free to change it back – Qxz 18:41, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This whole section uses extra-obtuse HTML, at least in my opinion. The text in question could be written in what would, I feel, be a more readable style:

"<i>Doctor</i>? No other title? A <i>scholar</i>? And he rates above the civil authority?"<br> <br>

"Why, certainly," replied Hardin, amiably. "We're all scholars more or less. After all, we're not so much a world as a scientific foundation — under the direct control of the Emperor."

To me, at least, this is much more straightforward; the paragraph tags are unnecessary and line breaks may be put in with a break tag, and tags with i for italic and b for bold make a heck of a lot more sense to me than arbitrarily deciding that one single-quote means one and two of them means the other. The code for the dash is still fairly unintuitive, but still, it seems like this is (intentionally or unintentionally) set up to portray wikicode in a more favorable light as compared to HTML than is, in fact, reasonable. -Id the Mildly Confused 23:27, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, in the spirit of established Wikipedia guidelines... -Id the Mildly Confused 04:19, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that we should make a fair comparison by avoiding unnecessary ugliness.

And I agree that "<i>i for italic</i> and <b>b for bold</b>" make a lot of sense.

However, the HTML 4 standard "discourages" their use[5].

The standard recommends "<em>em for emphasis</em> and <strong>strong for strong emphasis</strong>" instead[6]. --68.0.120.35 15:46, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some people say that "proper" web authoring avoids "bold", "italic", and "break" tags (dismissing them as "Bed and BReakfast markup (B&BR)"), instead using "heading", "emphasis", and "paragraph" tags. --68.0.120.35 14:43, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe there should be two examples, one for proper 'strict' html and one for 'I don't care, most browsers will (probably) read this (somehow)'. But if we really dive into this topic, the problem is the lacking definition of what HTML means in this article. The usage of " is correct in any definition (even transitional), afaik. This character needs to be escaped. Tierlieb 10:49, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Using "header" to visually render "bold" is improper, much as using two <br> to make one <p>. Although they are not all deprecated, the source refers about b and i that "their use is discouraged in favor of style sheets", not in favor of h and em. There will still be simpler coding that doesn't need style sheets. Anyway, on this and that, please consult the w3c site and above all the w3c validator. The &quot; is valid but optional since version 3.

BTW, this validates as 4.01 strict (provided you supply the sections): <p>"<i>Doctor</i>? No other title? A <i>scholar</i>? And he rates above the civil authority?"<p>"Why, certainly," replied Hardin, amiably. --Xyzt1234 10:00, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is certainly not necessary to quote quotation marks, except where they're used in attribute values (which is the reason for including the entity in the specification). It may be good style to use <q>...</q> in their place, but this is rarely done in practice. I've changed the article to use normal quotation mark characters. JulesH 17:52, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with JulesH -- &quot; is unnecessarily obtuse, and normal quotes are just as technically correct.

Xyzt1234 is right that using heading tags in the middle of a sentence to visually render bold is improper. However, if I'm reading W3 correctly [7] [8], w3 implies what "Bed and BReakfast markup (B&BR)" makes explicit: discouraging "<i>" and recommending "<em>" instead; discouraging "<b>" and recommending "<strong>" instead.

Or is there some other tags that the CSS "bold" and "italic" attribute would attach to?

--70.130.47.149 05:01, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article says, The English-language Wikipedia is the largest wiki.. According to http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_wikis , it isn't. Qweki is the largest, if we're going by the most articles (which is too bad because it's essentially a spam bank). Wikipedia, however, is the largest encyclopedia wiki. Can someone help me rewrite that, as well as the subsequent sentence. W3stfa11/^{Talk to me} 04:07, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was looking for Wikipedia's policy on wiki's as sources and searched for "Wiki" which spat me out here. Two things- can anyone help me found said policy, and two, can we put a link somewhere for others who find themselves in my situation, unless this seems like an isolated occurrence? Thanks N i g h t F a l c o n 9 0 9 0 9' ^{T a l k} 12:45, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Correction needed: Saying that WIKI stands for "What I know is" is not actually an acronym, but a backronym. Acronym means that the phrase is the actual origin of the word (self-contained underwater breathing aparatus became scuba), while a backronym is a phrase made up later to explain it (TIP is not from "To insure promptness" - that's a backronym that was made up later) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.42.80.45 (talk) 03:28, 11 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

So corrected, and an internal link was added to help with the definition of backronym. --Claygate 12:45, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any more reliable source for this backronym claim than thefreedictionary.com?--Eloquence* 11:18, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's in multiple sources of a diverse nature, which indicates wider usage: [9], [10], [11] --Claygate 12:35, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, I mean for the claim that "Wiki" is a backronym. :-) --Eloquence* 20:56, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see, there is also reference to it in the "The Economist", which is good source. Although they don't mention backronym directly they back the assertion that it comes from the Hawaiian word, but "also stands for" the phrase in the backronym. [12]

That mention postdates our own, and it is very possible that Wikipedia has "created" this little fact. It was introduced by an IP with this edit back in October 2005. I have certainly never heard it before seeing it in this article, and I've been using wikis for a while .. Still, since it has gained some notability outside Wikipedia, I suppose we can leave it in.--Eloquence* 01:48, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The trustworthiness is so full of typos and bad English, including in the quotation, that I am wondering if it's a piece of subtle vandalism. Any opinions? Owen 08:47, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it is a careless addition. Can you please fix the english. --Aminz 08:46, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I made an edit, and so did someone else, and it is now not quite so bad. Owen 08:54, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can't figure out what this sentence is trying to say:

The client-side wiki system parallels HTML in that the page becomes a rendering instruction for the browser to interpret.

Actually, I did just figure it out, but I think it could be reworded. Any thoughts? HeirloomGardener 18:45, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neither did I. -- by DealtDream 15:42, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia, an online encyclopedia, is one of the best known wikis.

Such a sentence(above) is apparently not correct. It's not exact at least. It should be changed into :

Wikipedia, an ever-lasting online "encyclopedia project" founded and supported by Wikimedia foundation, is one of the best known wikis.

or like such.

• Nothing is ever-lasting. ongoing or long-lasting maybe? Sorry, am I being pedantic? --Kylemew 20:32, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why has such a misleading page(Wiki) been protected and maintained? -- by DealtDream 15:42, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at the image in the top-left corner of this page, it says "WIKIPEDIA The Free Encyclopedia". So, Wikipedia claims itself to be an encyclopedia. As a matter of logical consistency, we should not claim on the same web page that we both are, and are not, an encyclopedia, would you not agree?

(Also, please note that protection/semi-protection does not constitute an endorsement of the current version. After all, the current version might not be the one that was initially protected! It is just an administrative measure to reduce disruptive editing.)—greenrd 17:45, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article conflates open-source wikis [those whose wiki scripts or content are freely available] with open access wikis [those anyone can edit]. Vandalism and inaccuracies tend to be problems of open access wikis; whether these wikis' scripts are open source is a different issue. 67.168.248.185 03:50, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. I'm not sure open access is the right term to use, particularly as many readers won't be sure what it means, so I used a simpler form of words instead.—greenrd 09:49, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This problem has crept back in, at the start of the "Trustworthiness" section. I'd suggest a change to "open-access" there. I'm not sure whether that section really should exist at all, nor whether (if it should exist) it belongs where it is; but those are separate issues. 129.97.79.144 18:57, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When the article says Wikipedia relies on the "goodness of people", that could be construed as a naive dependence on the goodness of *everyone*, in all circumstances. I humbly submit that it read "the goodness of people on average" or "as a whole". Like democratic systems of government, universities, and just about every other useful system we have.

As one who was originally quite dubious of the concept, I think this would be slightly more convincing and more accurate, and do more to evangelize the system.

Forrestschaaf 19:43, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't think it implies that everyone is good all the time, I think it means that wikis are a result of people's goodness. Also, one of the really good things about wikis is that they are not democratic. --Kylemew 10:06, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to include one more external link under the external link table at the bottom. A filmmaker named Rory O'Connor is making a documentary about the wiki phenomenon that users can, wiki-style, edit themselves, and I would like to include the URL for the movie's site. The URL for the "Wikimentary" is http://globalvision.wikia.com/wiki/Main_Page. Thank you.Philipemarlow 21:28, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The second statement in the "Etymology and meaning" section doesn't make sense. Wikipedia has not been designed to be quick and easy to use because the word "wiki" means "quick" in Hawaiian. Wikipedia has been designed to be quick and easy to use, and the use of "wiki" is simply appropriate. The "therefore" in the second sentence should be deleted. The two statements will still retain enough semantic connection to make sense when read together.

Then again, there's so much discussion of the word "wiki" in the History section that this Etymology section could be deleted. Else the etymological material should be moved to the Etymology section. Dsleaton 17:37, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My short and frustrating experience with CamelCase wikis ended when I made a wiki link to "CompuTers", which is awkward enough, and the main article came out titled "Compu Ters". Xyzt1234 09:10, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The sentence "The democratic, all-encompassing nature of Wikipedia is a significant factor in its growth, while many other wikis are highly pecialized" shoud be rephrased with "democratic" taken out. I didn't want to make the change myself because i couldn't think of a way to explain the reason of the change directly on the main article page, so in order to prevent multiple reverts i listed the issue here. Please fix it, it's totally misleading. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_democracy
On the other hand, the sentence should be removed altogether unless there is a citation. Although i believe this "citation needed" thingie went way to far these days (beyond absurdity imo), in this very case this statement really has nothing to do here unless it has a serious study behind it.
Gyll 12:47, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

{{editprotected}} Consider adding the following:

A 1995 article in Nature magazine concluded that Wikipedia was about as accurate as Encyclopedia Britannica [13], though the article is dispute by Britannica [14]. Richinomicron 17:49, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article was not in 1995, it was in 2005. Other than that, I think this is a valid addition.—greenrd 18:38, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've disabled the edit protect as this page is only semi-protected and does not require an admin to make this edit. - auburnpilot talk 03:18, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not that I argue the question itself, but isn't that kind of biased? Then there's the issue of this statement being cited by the article its contained in four times. It might just be a problem with the wording but the circular citation should most likely be fixed, no?

A native tray of the Igorot people.--210.213.170.178 10:44, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

--210.213.170.178 11:10, 14 July 2007 (UTC)A native tray of the Igorots.--210.213.170.178 11:10, 14 July 2007 (UTC) Native foods are usally served using the acgo. Acgo is made out of bamboo. --Kayabang 11:15, 14 July 2007 (UTC)Acgos nowadays are being commercialized in the markets. Some people buy them for displaying fruits and other crafts.--210.213.228.183 11:41, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The current opening line is: "A wiki is a collaborative website which can be directly edited by anyone with access to it." I had changed it to: "A wiki is a type of website that can be collaboratively written, distinguished by a unique hyperlink system called wiki links." but it was reverted by Rambutan saying "Not necessarily: that's just Wikipedia." I disagree.

Wiki links are key to what makes a wiki - why do you think Ward Cunngham called it the "simplest type of database that could possibly work"? Databases are about linking information. I don't know of any wiki software that doesn't have wiki links - which are a form of hypertext slightly more advanced than the hyperlink. Open access of the wiki to lots of people is a cultural thing, and a type of wiki - not a defining characteristic ie, personal wiki's. Wiki links are key. Arguably, versioning is another distinguishing feature.

I think it also it would read better to phrase the opening line as "A wiki is a type of website that can be collaboratively written..." because this makes it more comparable to other definitions ie, blogs are a type of website as well. Elias 11:58, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I like it the way it is. I took it from Wiktionary as it is concise, unambigious and easier to read and understand than what went before it. Who says databases are about linking information? They are about relationships between information and linking is just one form of relationship. Just because all wikis have links doesn't mean that that is a defining feature. The defining features (in my opinion) are collaboration and open access. Sorry if this sounds like a rant, its not. Please get back as I want to help tidy this article and we need to, yeah you got it, collaborate. --Kylemew 18:15, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• "can be collaboratively written" or "is collaboratively written"?

That's cool. Given the poor state this article in, I think it would merit we actualy clearly define what a wiki is because to me it doesn't seem clear. Once I know there is some consensus, I will be more than happy to add more content and fix it up. Just as background, I have spent the last six months implementing wiki's amongst other technologies as a new form of collaboration as my firm (revenue 1 billion plus). I have a lot of experience with wiki's (and collaboration for that matter), and so I just want to establish that my views are so because I have already spent a lot of time thinking about them, and spent a lot of time trying to explain it to people. I've had some big chats with a wiki guru called Stewart Mader who I am sure would be happy to have his say on the issue as well if this discussion merits it. I feel saying a wiki is defined due to its "collaboration" and "open access", in my eyes, does not do it justice. My thoughts on a wiki is that as a technology, they are nothing too special as they are more of a social revolution occuring rather than a major technological change. Therefore I think it is important to recognise these two different facets of a wiki - the cultural side, as well the technological.

What differentiates a wiki with its technology is:

1) versioning. I take it you agree that the way pages are versioned is fairly unique to wiki technology?

2) Wiki links. Wiki links are very different from normal hyperlinks, and are closer to the true form of hypertext. Tim Berner's Lee when he created the web invented hyperlinks as a stripped down version of the original hypertext invention. The inventor of wiki's was inspired by the hypertext systems of the 1980s, and with the above quote about it being a database, highlights wiki links are key to what makes a wiki a wiki.

Across all wiki platforms, you will find they are the only consistent things amongst wikis and what make them different from other technologies.

Culturally, what defines a wiki is how there is not one editor but many. This open editing philosophy which without having to say it, implies collaborative editing as you state it - is embodied by the edit button.

By your definition, you are saying that unless more than two people can edit it, it is therefore not a wiki? Whilst the collaboration aspect of a wiki is powerful, and the fact it generates a community of users around the content, that's not what makes it a wiki because arguably a group blog could be the same thing you describe. It's the 'open editing' rights that makes this type of collaboration different from other technolgy tools. As in it's not collaboration that differentiates a wiki, but collaboratively authoring.

I am writing with the interests of the article, so I don't mean to offend anyone. I hope others can offer their views Elias 11:47, 16 July 2007 (UTC) Small Text[reply]

• No offence taken - can't see why you thought there would be. I understand that open-editing implies collaboration but thought that this would require definition too and I wanted to keep it concise. There's more to this than meets the eye isn't there? I guess we should begin with versioning, wiki-linking and open-editing/cultural revolution as the core concepts and build from there, no? Thanks man --Kylemew 15:53, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Found this simple comment in an well-recognised analyst report which differentiates blogs with wikis. "Essentially, blogs represent an author-centric view that is communication-orientated (e.g., posts and comments) whereas wikis represent a content-centric view that is collaboration-oriented (e.g., versioned pages). Blog Technology Within The Enterprise - Burton Group analysis July 2007. I think defining a wiki, just like a blog,you are wrong you can't just do so on the technology as it is largely a social phenonmenon. So in that context, I agree our definition should incorporate the collaboration features (via open editing), in addition to versioning and wiki links. Elias 04:54, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe we should describe what wikis are, not what they started off as or what they should be. There are many wikis out there that do not allow open editing. I agree that group editing is a key capability of wiki software. Perhaps we need to be clear what we are describing wiki software or wiki sites.Mark 07:18, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

The concept of blogs as being author-centric and wikis article-centric is very interesting. I think, but am often wrong, that article-centricity is very important when the contributors and users of the wiki are the same people, such as when it is being used to develop a computer programme or scientific priniciple. However wikis have developed beyond this. Wikipedia for example has many more readers than users. Perhaps its time for wikis such as wikipedia to become reader-centric otherwise they run the risk of becoming repositories of inaccessible information. Perhaps we should be thinking of constructing wiki pages in the way we construct other web pages. Remembering that any web or wiki page is unlikely to be read from start to finish we need to follow simple website conventions such as: clear above the fold introduction to what is on the page , meaningful section titles, etc. If we stay article-centric we may make it harder for readers to find the information they need. For example the logical construction for an article is starting with the history of an item and then progressing to current use, leaving what most readers want to know until last. Turned into a bit of a rant didnt it - but I like this sort of discussion. Mark 21:38, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

• Yeah man, but you're right, are we describing the software or the sites? Its an encyclopedia not a dictionary, so I guess there's scope for both. Another angle is "how it works" ie the technology and "what it does" ie the sites and I don't think any definition would be complete without mention of the social significance (if there is any: I meet dozens of people who have no idea how wikis are put together). Do we need to break it down further? Readers do not use the sites in the same way we do. I don't know. Cheers. --Kylemew 12:45, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article seems to mix up two different things - the software and attributes of that software that makes Wikis possible and people's views on how a wiki should operate or the philosophy it represents. A wiki closed to 100 people on a intranet is still (to my mind a wiki) - the fact that the social group is closed is irrelevant - otherwise Citizenpidum (sp) would not be a wiki and it clearly is. --Fredrick day 17:06, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some one vandalized the Homer Plessy page and I don't feel like logging in and I don't really know how to revert the page, so could some one who does know how come fix it please... Oh yea I put the message here because I know a lot of people read this and since no one noticed the changes to the page i didn't think any one would be reading the talk page or w/e... -Hiaburi

Wiki#_note-1 currently references "Richard Heigl, Markus Glaser, Anja Ebersbach(2006)", which is only half the needed information to make this a useful source. Which book is quoted? "Wiki. Web collaboration", ISBN 3540351507? Btw., in that case, Alexander Warta has been omitted. Tierlieb 12:21, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"A wiki is a medium which can be edited by anyone with access to it, and provides an easy method for linking from one page to another."

I think there is a big contradiction here.

The page saying what is wiki says that everyone can edit it, but the page itself is uneditable.

dump —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.58.10.80 (talk) 00:40, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dont put "edit this page" when people are logged out=

ex: