Talk:Wiki/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5

Source for Lars Aronsson quote

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)

"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 way."

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)

"The page saying what is wiki says that everyone can edit it, but the page itself is uneditable." you expected different here? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.125.110.223 (talk) 21:57, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

"these systems could be easily tampered with"

"Critics of open-source wiki systems argue that these systems could be easily tampered with" Closed-source wiki systems could just as easily be tampered with. 139.133.7.38 13:31, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Client-side Wiki

In the Architecture section client-side wikis are mentioned using javascript. Is this referring to personal wikis? And are we sure the javascript part is correct? IMHO client-side functionality can be implemented with or without js as well. The section seems to say that client-side wikis in general are implemented using javascript, which (again, imho) is wrong. Zsomboro

Guerilla merge

Merge guerilla wiki here as proposed by User:16@r on 30 October 2007.

Support -- I feel this article would benefit from a section sexy beast in the corporate setting and the material on peanut wikis would fit well as a subsection. I've set up several wikis myself for small organizations, and there a number of issues that recurrently come up in that context concerning privacy, release of sensitive information, and liability. Note that I am supporting a merge if that is the direction this takes, and not the preservation of the present content of the guerilla wiki page, which is a separate matter. MaxEnt (talk) 10:03, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
Support Would make an excellent subsection. Agree with MaxEnt regarding guerilla wiki's current content.--Hu12 (talk) 21:39, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Support I think it should be a subsection, guerilla wiki is a stub article as it is anyway, and it is within the category of a wiki. (Fiv5katz (talk) 01:26, 20 November 2007 (UTC))
Support Contains neither sufficient content nor the potential for sufficient content to justify it's own article. Not to mention it may be argued to be a Neologism -Verdatum (talk) 18:48, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete I looked into a good way to merge the info, and it just feels like such a neologism that I don't see any good place to put it. Nor is the information particularly worthy of it's own section. A Google search shows the only time the term comes up is in relation to the Wikipedia article itself, tiddlywiki, or used in other contexts entirely (e.g. Exploiting Wikipedia to start grassroots campaigns). Without reference to a reputable authority on wikis using the term, I don't see any reason to include it. -Verdatum 15:37, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

To followup, the article has been deleted. -Verdatum (talk) 17:47, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

'See also' section

I did some simple cleanup of this section according to WP:LAYOUT#See_also. Should the 'See Also' section repeat links already listed at the bottom of the article in the Template:Wiki topics box? -Verdatum (talk) 19:26, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Spirit of the wiki or spirit of wiki - why is it not in Wikipedia?

I've heard the term "spirit of the wiki" and "spirit of wiki" thrown around alot, but Wikipedia doesn't seem to define or describe it. This seems like a vast oversight. Why hasn't anyone done this? Does it violate the "spirit of the wiki"? :-p --Fandyllic (talk) 12:44 PM PST 6 Dec 2007 —Preceding comment was added at 20:45, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Typically wiki spirit is referenced in the context of a technological or policy restriction that makes it difficult to have collaborative development or a low barrier to entry, such as a concept of people "owning" articles, page protection, or verified user identities. It's certainly worthy of discussion. Dcoetzee 03:52, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
it's not talked about because wikipedia doesn't possess wiki spirit —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.125.110.223 (talk) 16:50, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Re: "Definitely not a software engine by that entry's definition."

Software engine says, "A software engine is a computer program that outputs source code or markup code that simultaneously becomes the input to another computer process." Now, in your browser do <View><Page Source> (or something similar). Notice that this Wiki transmitted HTML (markup code) and Javascript (source code) to your browser (another computer process) that was simultaneously executed. Timhowardriley (talk) 20:45, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid i muddied things by not reading the entire software engine entry, and then writing, "by that entry's definition". By that definition, most wikis are software engines. But the important thing here is that the term software engine is more likely to confuse then educate readers. In any case, there are many perfectly good wikis that are not software engines - e.g., WikidPad, VoodooPad, etc. --John_Abbe (talk) 11:20, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

It's hard for me to imagine how using a term that is more specific can be more likely to confuse than using a term that is more general. In any case, of course, if some wikis are not software engines then the more general term should be used. Timhowardriley (talk) 18:01, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Hits per day

Does anyone know why this article gets so many hits, 3 000 000 a day [1]. Is is because a lot of people accidentally hit this off the main page or something, or is it because people want to know what the wiki in wikipedia stands for? Tom (talk) 14:52, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

A large number of hits may stem from the fact that if you do a Google search for wiki (as a short search term that will obviously have wikipedia as the top hit) this page is the first web-page listed. A lot of people, particularly those that are not to savvy about the internet will use search engines every time they want to go to their favorite sites rather than bookmarking them (simply because they haven't learnt how to) or just typing in the address. That's my theory anyway... Shearluck (talk) 13:05, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Typo

Ctrl+F "described the the essence" --89.59.193.49 (talk) 21:23, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

If you see a typo, there's no need to bring it up on the talk page. Just fix it yourself. (However, since you already mentioned it here, I'll fix it.) Pyrospirit (talk · contribs) 21:28, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Cannot edit w/o logging in. Funnily the line below the typo reads "A wiki invites all users to edit any page" :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.59.193.49 (talk) 21:34, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, unfortunately, I had to protect this page after a ton of vandalism within minutes of it being unprotected. I'll keep watch and reconsider but it doesn't look likely to be freed up soon. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:14, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Redirects

This page is the target of 20 redirects, not bad... 16@r (talk) 13:16, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

There are actually 38 redirects, 20 are on the first page. --Unixguy (talk) 18:45, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Edit conflict resolution

I came to this page looking for info on how Wiki's handle "simultaneous" updates. I couldn't find it, so hoped to see it in a FAQ. No FAQ! I subsequently found the answer, under Edit Conflict Resolution, by looking into Ward Cunningham's web site (no locks - didn't think there could be - just first Save wins, 2nd gets notified (by automatic diff?)). But sure this question must occur to many people interested in understanding Wiki's. Could such a section be added? Edetic (talk) 22:05, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, this is a per-implimentation design consideration. Conflict resolution can take place in a number of different ways on various wiki implimentations. What you found was just how resolution takes place with Mediawiki. While it's not impossible, I personally don't see how this sort of content can be added to the article (certainly not without reference anyway). -Verdatum (talk) 18:40, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Use in education

Wikis have been used as educational tools to help students in higher education; perhaps there could be a section entitled "Educational uses of wikis". ACEOREVIVED (talk) 21:06, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikis have been used as tools to help countless applications. Does it really help the article to detail them? And if it does, can you provide Reputable Sources to support this addition of content? -Verdatum (talk) 18:47, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Define wiki

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)

  • 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)
  • "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

  • 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)
    • 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)

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)

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)

Context and Evolution

What seems to be missing from this article is putting wiki's into some sort of framework or context, comparing them to alternate approaches to textual content creation and maintenance, wiki's strengths & weaknesses, emerging trends and future directions.

Of course one thing that is mentioned is the collaboration potential of wikis. Is inherent collaboration a must have feature of a wiki, one which clearly differentiates it from other types of CMS? What other characteristics? What about consensus building systems? Educational potential? Censorship and political neutrality? What role does the administration and editorial panels have to play to prevent corruption and how much effort is required? What factors determine how much effort is required to sustain clean wikis? Have collaborative wikis already reached an equilibrium against the forces of politics, wiki-wars, corruption, anarchy, vandalism and ignorance?

As an avid wiki user, its apparent there is a tension in the structuring of articles, stubs vs bloat, the layering of details, how to move content material up and down a hierarchy. This issue is not unique to wikis of course, its something many authors face. What breakthoughs and experiments are finally underway to try and grapple with this age-old problem, especially now that rich client browser technology is now the norm, and new technologies such as HTML5/CSS3 are emerging quickly. What about impact of small touch screen mobile devices, how can content creation be done which inherently works across all client platforms and the hierarchy of information presentation is dynamic, controlled by the device and user, almost like a slider which can show more or less details in articles? What structural support is/will be available to authors and editors? What hierarchical or multi-layer architectural advances are being made in wikis for instance to deeply structure content and separate content from presentation?

See also suggestion? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reliability_of_Wikipedia Electro rick (talk) 21:28, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

I would like to say that when you read articles like this make sjure they are wrong!! because this website is fake i mean fake as in people can change the meanings and stuff. {{subst:uw-unsigned2|10:21, 28 May 2013‎|Vickki01}}

Suggestion: reducing clutter through list-defined references

Regarding [2]. Per Wikipedia:Citing_sources#Avoiding_clutter: "Inline references can significantly bloat the wikitext in the edit window and can be extremely difficult and confusing. There are three methods that avoid clutter in the edit window: list-defined references, short citations or parenthetical references. (As with other citation formats, articles should not undergo large scale conversion between formats without consensus to do so.)" I'd like to introduce list-defined references to this article, to make it more friendly to edit (less code -> closer to WYSWIWYG). Per the request of editor who reverted me and WP:CITEVAR recommendation I'd like to ask editors interested in this article for input which style they prefer, and strongly suggest following the "avoid clutter" recommendation. While LDR add a little code to the total size of the article, it amounts to only 10% or so of the total article size, so load time should not be significantly affected (nobody should notice a 10% change; also, section edit load time will shorter anyway...), and editing experience should become much friendlier. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:18, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Just have to say "List-defined reference" are the worst format we have here. Content editors have constantly voted to eliminate this format altogether. Best to make the article user friendly. None will follow the LDR when updating pages - thus were you find LDR style you will always see the normal format mixed in. Just look at Michael Jackson. All it does is cause work for us as seen here at Avril Lavigne someone will have to come along and fix the new refs to match the LDR format - in the case of Avril Lavigne I have seen editors revert referenced material just because it was the wrong ref format. LDR's is nothing but a problem - noting user friendly about having to edit 2 sections to add one statement. Moxy (talk) 22:23, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Pronunciation

"Wiki is pronounced 'witi or 'viti"? While T is transliterated to K in Hawaiian, the K in Wiki is pronounced the way it looks; fortunately most people have no trouble figuring that out. Ka'upena Kuahewa (talk) 16:05, 2 February 2013 (UTC) 2/2/13

Miszabot malfunction?

Dear Miszabot,

The archives need refactored:

  • Archive 1: 2003- 15July2011
  • Archive 2: 2008 - 25Aug2012
  • Archive 3: 2006 - 2Feb2013
  • Archive 4: 2007 - 7Marcch2008

The entire talk page was harvested. Minthreads left was = 4.

I've restored the last several discussions of Archive 3. — CpiralCpiral 17:51, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Miszabot itself isn't at fault here - the talk page had just been whittled down to a few undated, inappropriate comments (since Miszabot doesn't know how to handle undated comments), and I cleaned them out yesterday. Bringing a few proper threads back to show people what a talk page should look like was a good call, though, I should have thought of it.
Skimming the archives, it looks like Miszbot was set up a little erratically - the user who added it took the existing Archives 1-3 and put them all into Archive 1, telling Miszabot to start there, but someone restored the Archive 3 deletion (which is now duplicated in Archive 1), and the pre-existing Archive 4 was never touched! I've bumped Miszabot forward to carry on from 4, and will take a look at tidying the archives when I've got more time. --McGeddon (talk) 18:10, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
Thank you McGeddon. You're a programmer and a scholar. I assume you'll be somewhat automating the task. — CpiralCpiral 03:13, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
I'm not sure messy archives merit the effort of automating anything (I can't see any obvious quick solutions), but I've deleted the repeated content. --McGeddon (talk) 12:07, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Reader feedback - length, quality, pic

Many feedback items I just marked as "No action needed" requested more pictures, without any specific suggestions. If anyone has any specific ideas, please either add them to the article or leave a note here. I tagged this page as having a picture request. Something helping people to visualize the parts of the system (code, database, web server, web browser, etc.) might be what some people are looking for.

Other feedback items either requested that the article be generically longer, more detailed, simpler, less boring, and easier to understand. Some folks thought that it is awesome as is. Yay. -- Beland (talk) 17:55, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Wiki/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Ritchie333 (talk · contribs) 10:32, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

I'll give this a go.

  • As initial remark, I want to make sure all the reverts are just minor or undoing vandalism, and the article is long-term stable.

Characteristics

  • This section has several unreferenced paragraphs. While it might be obvious to us what the characteristics of a Wiki are (we've got as far as understanding the GA criteria, after all), articles should be written to the layman to help their understanding of the subject, and hence need to be factually correct and verifiable.
  • Are the three bullet points from The Wiki Way a direct quotation or a summary of it? Either way, we need a reference, ideally down to the page number in the book.
  • The quotation from biomedicalcentral.com appears to take up the entire paragraph, and might be a borderline copyright infringement. It would be better to simply rewrite what the source says in our own words.

Editing wiki pages

  • "The style and syntax of wikitexts can vary greatly among wiki implementations" - this probably wants some actual examples of what the differences are.
  • As you're probably aware, the MediaWiki visual editor is now out of alpha grade and available generally here.
  • Might also be worth mentioning that some wikis provide hooks to allow custom user interface code to be written (I've personally done this)

Navigation

  • This section is unreferenced

Linking and creating pages

  • This section is unreferenced

Searching

  • Half of this section is unreferenced

History

  • This section has a when? tag on it and the paragraph containing it is unreferenced.
  • The last sentence is in a single paragraph. In general, we prefer to merge these

Implementations

  • This section is completely unreferenced.

Trust and security : Trustworthiness

  • This Nature reference (cited in the middle pargraph immediately following the quotation) returns 401 : "Subscription based". Probably not an issue.

Trust and security : Security

  • What does "virtual vandalism" mean?
  • soft-security is cited to UseModWiki. The rest of the first paragraph is cited to Assothink Wiki. Wikis are generally unreliable sources.
  • Most of the second paragraph is unreferenced. You might want to consider examples from the German Wikipedia.
  • Citizendium "creating an almost "vandalism-free" ambiance." Are you sure? This definitely needs a citation!

Communities : Applications

  • The Alexa traffic reference is five years old and should be updated
  • This Brighthub reference (cited in second paragraph) returns 416 "Download error".
  • None of the three references citing "Wikis can be used for project management" look particularly reliable.

Communities : WikiNodes

  • I'm not sure the only source in this section, a now dead link (archived by the Wayback Machine) to wikinodes.wiki.taoriver.net is a reliable source.

Conferences

  • The references that verify the conferences certainly verify their existence, but I'm not sure they're all notable enough to be mentioned. Really each one wants a third party source. For instance, This news source involving Wikimania is third party.

Rules

Legal environment

  • The second paragraph is unreferenced

More later. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:32, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:
Okay, I've done a sweep through the article, and as it currently stands there are major problems with sections being unsourced or questionably sourced. In my view, it will take a significant amount of work to fix this so the article meets GA Criteria 2b ("inline citations"), 2c ("no original research") and 3a ("broad in coverage"). As I don't like suddenly turning up and quickfailing GA candidates, I'll wait and see what your response to the issues raised is first. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:15, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Sorry to go off-topic, but (nice as it might seem to some) what's with all the coloured text? 78.147.86.1 (talk) 21:28, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Comments

Excellent feedback! I tagged a bunch of problems and cleaned up the minor ones:

  • Fixed the actually-dead links.
  • Updated Visual Editor status
  • Tagged {{example needed}} for wiki synatx variety
  • Merged 1-sentence paragraph
  • Implementations: This is mostly summarizing linked internal articles; normally I would defer references to them. Care to tag anything in particular you feel could benefit from a direct citation?
  • Tagged Nature reference {{Subscription required}}
  • Defined "vandalism" (removed "virtual")
  • Tagged unreliable sources
  • Tagged out of date Alexa reference
  • The WikiNodes source is somewhat primary, but it's some of the only evidence I could find for this usage. I would tag it as unreliable, but I'm not sure there's a better source out there.
  • Tagged all the "citation needed" spots

Other than what's now tagged on the page and whatever you think in Implementations that needs a citation, I would take your suggestions as additional todo items:

  • Editing wiki pages: "Might also be worth mentioning that some wikis provide hooks to allow custom user interface code to be written (I've personally done this)"
  • Trust and security/Security: "You might want to consider examples from the German Wikipedia."
  • Conferences: "The references that verify the conferences certainly verify their existence, but I'm not sure they're all notable enough to be mentioned. Really each one wants a third party source. For instance, This news source involving Wikimania is third party."
  • Rules: "I think in order to be broad in coverage, this section should give one or two other examples aside from Wikipedia and Conservapedia, such as Citizendium or RationalWiki"

I'm certainly not going to have time to fix the problems identified, but I'm glad we now have a new todo list to move toward good article status. Since this article was previously nominated and most of the previously identified problems were fixed, I thought it was time for another look. Thanks for taking the time! -- Beland (talk) 16:18, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Oh, and the BMC quote points to an article that says "This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0)". But I agree, that was an excessively long quote, so I cut it down for brevity. -- Beland (talk) 16:26, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the feedback. I'll mark the review as "failed", but as ever, all that means is an article isn't in shape to pass the GA criteria yet. And, as you say, the review can be kept and referred back to as a todo list, and you've already made the article better than its pre-review state. So it's really a net positive. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:14, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Criticisms?

Is this article really neutral? I, for one, am sure that to sentences like:

Maged N. Kamel Boulos, Cito Maramba and Steve Wheeler write that the open wikis produce a process of Social Darwinism. "'Unfit' sentences and sections are ruthlessly culled, edited and replaced if they are not considered 'fit', which hopefully results in the evolution of a higher quality and more relevant page. Whilst such openness may invite 'vandalism' and the posting of untrue information, this same openness also makes it possible to rapidly correct or restore a 'quality' wiki page."

, there were people who would reply that what the majority considers most fit may instead be not optimal. - 89.110.10.48 (talk) 00:30, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

new policy to reduce confusion over 'talk'

is this a suitable place for discussion of wiki policy?

"article talk" pages and "user talk" pages can be confusing to the newbie, especially when the same notation "talk" is used in wiki scripts for the two very different link routes (user talk vs article talk).

to alleviate this problem, it might be useful to default "talk" to the article, and to add a category of "utalk" for "user talk".

so that

  • (cur | prev) 03:32, 2 June 2013‎ EdwinAmi (talk | contribs)‎ . . (14,148 bytes) (+73)‎ . . (undo)

would become

  • (cur | prev) 03:32, 2 June 2013‎ EdwinAmi (utalk | contribs)‎ . . (14,148 bytes) (+73)‎ . . (undo)

while the reference to

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wiki

would remain "talk".

in this way, "utalk" would become very distinguishable from (article) "talk".— Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.185.212.81 (talk) 12:35, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

History Of Hatra,Badaun (Uttar Pradesh) India

Here i aware all the person to the history of the Hatra.Hatra ar a village in Badaun district (UP) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.21.240.2 (talk) 08:45, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Trademark of word 'wiki' in Chinese language

This issues was raised on this talk page back in 2008 by user:Jpatokal, at Talk:Wiki/Archive 2#Trademark for Chinese word for "Wiki", but it was more of a question following up from meta:Talk:Wikimedia trademarks#Wikimedia Foundation trademarking 維基, the Chinese word for "wiki"?.

zh:維基 and zh-yue:維基 are both separate articles about the trademarked term, with zh:Wiki and zh-yue:Wiki being about the concept. The Chinese language articles about the trademark use http://tech.sina.com.cn/i/2009-09-15/13523439436.shtml (google translate) as a reference. While I do believe this should be covered in English Wikipedia, I'm not sure that this warrants a separate article, as I havent found a great deal of information about this trademark, but my Chinese language search skills leave a lot to be desired. Perhaps others can help find more sources. If it doesnt go in a separate article, does it go into this article? John Vandenberg (chat) 11:32, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

The zh.wp article has had two AFDs; a proper discussion in 2010 at zh:Wikipedia:頁面存廢討論/記錄/2010/10/10#維基 and a quick one in 2012 at zh:Wikipedia:頁面存廢討論/記錄/2012/09/14#維基. There is also an English Wiktionary entry wikt:维基 and two Chinese Wiktionary entries wikt:zh:维基 and wikt:zh:維基 (traditional). John Vandenberg (chat) 12:46, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Apart from being Hawaiian for "Quick", does the word 'Wiki' mean anything? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.44.233.163 (talk) 21:23, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Apart from it having become over-used, what grounds are there for using "wiki" as a word? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.20.229.102 (talk) 12:01, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

A few words about 'Wiki' - is Wiki a word? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.96.127.73 (talk) 21:21, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 February 2014

TaylorCR7 (talk) 12:26, 4 February 2014 (UTC) can i edit plz

Not done: Only once your account is WP:Autoconfirmed (10 edits and 4 days).
If you want to suggest a change in the meantime, please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to any article.

Change placement of Ward Cunningham picture

I just visited this page for the first time, and the picture of Ward Cunningham struck me as a little odd. I expect the picture at the top of an article to be representative of the subject(so in this case, it would be a screenshot of a wiki). I suggest moving this picture to the History section. (24.106.57.22 (talk) 21:02, 26 February 2014 (UTC))

Usually?

The article starts

A wiki is usually a web application which allows...

I find that to be a weak and confusing definition. Is it or is it not? In which cases is a wiki something else? Please enumerate all these exceptions. Could it be that the editor writing this had in mind "I can't be sure someone somewhere uses the term wiki for something completely different". In which case it's inappropriate to weaken our definition. At best, we should write something like "in this context, a wiki is a web application which allows..." retaining a strong definition while acknowledging other usages. 90.229.34.175 (talk) 08:33, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. My guess is that usually went more with the statement about allowing for collaboration, and so was misplaced. Regardless, it's gone now. Thanks. --— Rhododendrites talk |  16:31, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Proposed merge of City wiki

I propose merging City wiki into this article, under the Communities section. It's been more or less a link farm for most of its existence, and now that I've removed a sort of league table of the largest city wikis, per WP:RAWDATA, it has very little content at all. It's unlikely to ever develop into a worthwhile standalone article. — Scott • talk 15:50, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Real or True Information

The Article > A wiki is essentially a database for creating, browsing, and searching through information.

Amend> A wiki is essentially a database for creating, browsing, and searching through editors' information.
Add> Editors are encouraged to be guided to true and real information.
Abdusalambaryun (talk) 11:29, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

 Not done The text you wish to add is vague and would not be an improvement to this article. Sorry. — Scott • talk 11:34, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 September 2014

Dear wiki page friend

Could you please remove the reference [40] in the paragraph Participants:

The wiki administrator maintains wiki content and is provided additional functions pertaining to pages (e.g. page protection and deletion), and can adjust users' access rights by, for instance, blocking them from editing.[40]

and replace it with the link to MediaWiki reference manual as it is more appropriate in the context

Many thanks Mbstc (talk) 16:21, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Not done: The link is not to the MediaWiki reference manual, but rather Wikipedia's article on the software. (The actual manual is here.) But in either case, it is not a suitable source because 1) MediaWiki is not the only wiki software out there, and 2) neither of these is a reliable source because they can be edited by anyone. (That's right, Wikipedia cannot be used as a source for itself.) Anon126 (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 20:03, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

wiki wiki

The reduplication presumably means that the expression means very quick, not just quick. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.67.191.234 (talk) 15:56, 29 September 2014‎ (UTC)

That makes sense... but we should find a source before we include it.
Hawaiian grammar#Reduplication gives the following example:
  • ma'i "sick"; ma'ima'i "chronically sick"
So it looks like wiki is quick and wiki wiki is very quick... but it might be something slightly different.
Yaris678 (talk) 12:39, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

'Wiki' or 'wiki wiki' - where is the hard evidence that this modern internet term is a real word? --09:52, 18 November 2014‎ 2.96.124.185

See reduplication, used in the Austronesian languages (including Hawaiian) to intensify a meaning. (For example, in my mother's language, ag katawa is 'to laugh', while katkatawa is the gerund 'laughing'. In this case, the reduplication is of the root, 'kat'.) Ward Cunningham named his system for it: The Wiki Way. It's in the article. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 13:45, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
Presumably by "real word" you mean "not slang". It's unquestionably real. Whether it is slang is a secondary issue - I don't know the answer - and to say it is not "real" smacks of either laziness or racism. Would you say that "airhead" is not a real word just because it's slang?--greenrd (talk) 10:42, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 December 2014

You should add that anyone can edit this and that Wikipedia is not always right and to also add that They should also find other resources other than Wiki. Freedom2003 (talk) 12:48, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

 Not done; you aren't specifying an exact edit you want made and this isn't the Wikipedia article. --McGeddon (talk) 12:56, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Video of Ward Cunningham has Subtitles that are Inaccurate and Misleading

Greetings. Although I could find little to indicate any current momentum to improve this page, I am nonetheless, motivated to ask if any Wiki regulars have watched and read the Ward Cunningham video which is embedded at the top right of the page. Perhaps after donating money, I feel a bit more "protective" of Wikipedia's reputation. While the project needs no gallants to protect its virtues, its credibility is another challenge altogether. Specifically, the subtitles to the video of Ward Cunningham, titled "Interview with Ward Cunningham, inventor of the wiki" are an inaccurate match of spoken words to written words not just in the many irritating misspellings (usually of homophones), but in the meaning of his words. Twice the subtitles contradict what he is saying about the creation of his first wiki. One of these occurs when he talks about creating a " new collaborative text program" and the subtitles state he was creating a "new tax program". The obvious oral/written disconnects such as when he says, "I tried to write", the subtitles read, "I tried to right" are the type of "folksy" mistakes that we tend to overlook when watching our neighbor's home videos. Criticizing would seem churlish since in those videos the visuals are the main focus and the printed words are usually of secondary importance. (Also criticism of this type might actually impel the neighbor to edit those videos and show them again to demonstrate how our feedback had been integrated.) But in this video both oral and written presentations seem like they ought to be discussing the same ideas by using the same words? Or am I being too picky? He talks about the origins of the word, "wiki", saying "I used a Hawaiian word" and we see the photograph of a Hawaiian 'WIKI WIKI' shuttle. But the subtitles read" I decided to use a "wine word". Really? As in, "I find this Chardonnay to be crisp, with intonations of pears, hints of grass leaving a truly resplendent wiki on the palette." I'll take the Merlot, thanks.

This is not even to mention that the video itself needs to redirect to "Surrealism". Because it is surreal when Mr. Cunningham (around 9:33) discussing the merits of collaborative projects says "... because you know some of it, he knows some of it..." and the text is displaying "...like pi or John Sullivan all around us". Have videos ever been vandalized on WP before now?

Ironically, one of the most basic elements of a wiki, the ability to immediately correct an error is denied to us on the page describing this very element. I could only sit slack-jawed at what I was reading but unable to correct any of the mistakes. And they just keep coming. Try a sampling: 2:57, 3:02, 3:48, 3:56, 4:13. Many people with adequate hearing read subtitles. We can't shake our collective head and say that the hearing-challenged will be the only ones who get a stilted, sometimes nonsensical, and almost always inaccurate rendition of Mr. Cunningham's remarks.

The fact that no one has mentioned any of these errors, the fact the video is never mentioned in the archived notes, as far as I can determine, leads me to believe I am overlooking an important decision by the videographer, the transcriber, Mr. Cunningham and the Editors advising those of us who just happened upon the video, that there is a reason of all this. A statement to assuage people like me (who had a sinking feeling while watching the video that if this is as good as Wikipedia can do, then I do want a wine word to go with my pi. I do want John Sullivan to change the tax plan). A reassurance that the dysfunctional subtitles are meant for something more than a merely inept rendition of a man's words. Perhaps a written way to acknowledge the importance of Vox Pop You Lie, a peace offering to those resentful of literacy, "See we can be just as imprecise and out-of-touch as you. Welcome brother."

Obviously my first written contribution has already violated a number of "Talk" section guidelines and the helpful suggestions for the beginner. Brevity certainly died a quick death. Specific errors are not enumerated adequately, nor anywhere near completely. I am far from neutral about what I see as a problem and I have no way to offer help since I can edit subtitles, but not on an embedded video. I feel tempted to delete this entire entry. But these errors I've committed, particularly in going on this long are indicative of the feelings I have. It is embarrassing to watch the video knowing how many people land on this page daily. It is the first-listed on Google and Bing when querying "Wiki" but look what else redirects here as well. Even "Happy Days". I can't imagine how Mrs. Cunningham must feel. Not to mention Ward's wife if he's married. So I apologize for my long-windedness. Sort of. I would like to help fix these errors because that's whats important here, but I don't know how. If this has all been hashed out and resolved, I can only say I tried to find the pages where the problem and the fix were discussed, but I could not. Maybe if readers see such a long message and think it's a rant or someone about to be barred from WP making his final statement, it'll interest them enough to read it. I'd like to think that might happen. Because its scary Out Here on the ice, alone. With only wine words and Mr. Sullivan to keep me warm. Thanks for reading this if you did. I'll look forward to what happens now. Waiter! Czech please. (I'm using this contribution as a text right-off).

Top2bottomjk (talk) 18:11, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Good catch! The subtitles can be found at this page on Wikimedia Commons and corrected by anybody. It looks as if User:Tbayer (WMF) took an automatic transcription back in May 2014 and cleaned up some but not all of the text - if you search for the phrase "manually corrected" while editing the subtitles, you can see where the user stopped and started. A little surprised that there's no template for flagging unfinished transcriptions on Commons. --McGeddon (talk) 18:31, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
I have listened upto 5:50 and heard no glaring inconsistencies, so far. I went back to 2:57, even. But it captures the genuine Ward Cunningham, whom I have spoken to at Wikimania 2006. I will not pursue the thread further. Improve the transciption, by all means; keep it accurate. Thats in the spirit of Wiki, after all. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 18:42, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the accurate summary, McGeddon (and for the ping). Yes, when this video was announced on the Wikimedia blog, we invited people to edit the subtitles further, but nobody has worked on them since, probably also because they are hard to find in the format in which the video is currently embedded on this page (there's still work to do on improving the software support for subtitles). Sorry about this, Top2bottomjk, and you're welcome to add your corrections to the page linked by McGeddon. I'll try to do further work on these subtitles myself once I have some spare time.
(Side note on multiple account use: I previously also edited this page under my volunteer account, HaeB.)
Regards, Tbayer (WMF) (talk) 03:47, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 January 2015

Wikipedia is very useful a lot of the time but it is also full of BS so the moral of the story is, do not believe everything you read. 176.10.86.231 (talk) 10:37, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

 Not done; Self-evident and trivial. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:48, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 February 2015

Dear wikipedia i have some information regarding your website and i would like to share it with the world. your website was first known as the World Encyclopedia on the Web. i would just like to point that out to the millions of readers. Thank you Sjlogan77 (talk) 16:28, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

 Not done That is not a semi-protected edit request - and it is wrong - see History of Wikipedia - Arjayay (talk) 16:49, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

"Edit War" redirects here

Is this the best place for "edit war" query to redirect? I'm trying to learn about the Wikipedia editing process and going around in circles. d20 (talk) 23:45, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Wiki the word, and other labels for the basic idea..

The basic meaning of the word is lost, or has become near-lost, because of the world wide web use has become much less like that which it was in the late nineteen nineties, wherein web production was an involved process which required formatting "pages" in hypertext markup language HTML/format, using a text editor or code editor, and then deliver them to the web server machine by File Transfer FTP (using a remote file manager program). The essential meaning of "wiki" as derived is simply "fast document production" with some aspect of "collaboration" as per the elements and principles of the project. "Collaboration" being the main essence, not "quickness," "collab" or "colab" (as in co- "cooperative," and -lab "labor-ratio-ry"), suggested by myself (in.violatio.di.tyranos.).. (note.here.signed.with.tildes.but.returned.as.unsigned.maybe.hack).. Andariv Erunsthrue (talk • contribs .. ..in violation of the "no original research" idea as a policy since 2003.. because its "redactive in the reductive.." from.conv.).)

very useful Charlie3china (talk) 14:09, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 June 2018

197.156.115.241 (talk) 01:20, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. LittlePuppers (talk) 01:42, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 June 2018

i want to change my page lucia penninckx (kunstenaar) in lucia penninckx Lucia penninckx (kunstenaar) (talk) 11:03, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: This is not the right page, you may refer the page - Wikipedia:Changing username. regards, DRAGON BOOSTER ★ 11:52, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Subtitles

The subtitles of the video with Ward Cunningham seem to be auto-generated and are leaving out much of what he says. For the hearing impaired, this is a very frustrating situation. Can the original poster please remedy these subtitles, or message me directly to coordinate creating free, accurate subtitles for this video. It's too significant a video to have this problem. Youtryandyoutry (talk) 07:00, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Wiki/Archive_4&oldid=1075777985"