Talk:Wiki/Archive 2

message: We should include a link to comparison of wiki software on this page. I had to resort to google to find it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_wiki_software
Gm4n (talk) 21:19, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Potential changes 

message: In most Malayo-Polynesian languages reduplication is used to signify plural (for nouns), or continuous (for verbs). Does anyone know the exact implication in Hawaiian? It would be nice to add that to the page.  lk (talk) 13:38, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Meaning of wiki-wiki? 

message: Can wiki be a standard unit of digitally stored "knowledge" (in conventional sense)? (like a Meme) Sohale (talk) 02:17, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  unit of stored knowledge 

message: Many sites billed as wikis no longer use simplified markup language.  Are they no longer wikis or has the difinition of wiki changed?  Among those that don't use simplified markup language are PBWiki and Wetpaint. 70.165.110.211 (talk) 22:27, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Changing Wiki Definition? (wikitext) 

message: In "History" section instead of...
:Cunningham was in part inspired by Apple's HyperCard. Apple had designed a system allowing users to create virtual "card stacks" supporting links among the various cards.
we can write:
:Cunningham was in part inspired by Apple's HyperCard. Bill Atkinson had designed for Apple a system allowing users to create virtual "card stacks" supporting links among the various cards.
--Dvdgmz (talk) 08:22, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bill Atkinson 

message: The Chinese Wikipedia page claims that 維基 weiji, the Chinese rendering of "Wiki" used in Wikipedia (維基百科) etc, is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation and may not be used by any other site.  Indeed, such a trademark registration in the WMF's name can be found on the Taiwan Intellectual Property Office database.  Is this worth noting, and does the WMF presume to trademark the word in any other language or script?  The English form is certainly genericized already. Jpatokal (talk) 03:42, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trademark for Chinese word for "Wiki" 

message: The third paragraph's first sentence seems confusing:
Although limiting access to HTML and Cascading Style Sheets (CSS) of wikis limits user ability to alter the structure and formatting of wiki content, there are some benefits.
It sounds as if wiki editing is limited to HTML/CSS or that the latter are prohibited.  I'd like to suggest the following:
Although by limiting usage of HTML and Cascading Style Sheets (CSS) in wikis, user ability to alter the structure and formatting of wiki content is limited, there are some benefits.
Henrymiddle (talk) 19:17, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Re: Editing wiki pages 

message: In the last sentence of the introduction section, should "fast" be replaced with "quick"? "Fast" can also mean starving oneself, so "quick" may be a clearer choice. The webpage that the definition references also mentions "quick," so the reference wouldn't have to change. -Media Socialist (talk) 19:57, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wiki means "fast"? 

message: Just a suggestion, but you should add a Category:Social Media link to the bottom of the page. I definitely think wikis are social media.--Bill.albing (talk) 19:39, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Add Link to Social Media Category 

message: I had my edit 'reverted' by someone who said - without evidence- that it was advertising. Of course it is not. I have nothing to do with wikidot, which is mentioned as it is an important exampel of what I am describing. Suggest other exampels, don't delete without evidence or justification.
Gemtpm (talk) 14:19, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikidot 

message: The page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wiki should open with the cursor active in the Search Query text box ready to recieve keystrokes.
This improvement will save about 1 second per search.
If the average user hits Wiki 5 times per day that is a savings of 30 hours of time per user per year.
This improvement would save users approximately 177,000 hours per day for this website alone, according to rough website tracking of Wikipedia.
Currently the website consumes 20 years of total human time per day prior to the improvement.
Feel free to criticize this in any analytical light but this design inefficiency is temporaly obese no matter how many searches you eliminate per page hit.
Tabbing to the box has not produced an adequate solution.
Thanks and I apologize if this is not in the right section.  
I leave it to the page administrators to use their time to move this to the appropriate section and decide if their visitors time is worth the effort.
Excellent page, excellent community. I have confidence that despite my inability to sound natural and polite, this change will be taken seriously and be made with haste.
151.151.73.165 (talk) 17:35, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Useability: Cursor placement gobbling 20 years of time per day. 

message: It says in the very first paragraph that Wikipedia is a Wiki. WHAT?! NO! WIKITUBIA is a WIKI. WIKIPEDIA is a WIKIMEDIA PROJECT! Or, is it? NuttyGorillaWiki (talk) 23:48, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: eh? wiki is knowledge managements best friend? --Fredrick day 23:50, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

text: eh? wiki refers to software in that first paragraph not ownership? --Fredrick day 23:50, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

text: A wiki is a type of website that allows visitors to edit the content. It has nothing to do with ownership. Oh, and by the way, I think your link is broken. And easy on the caps, man. You were screaming almost your entire statement. --71.125.5.51 (talk) 12:20, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

text: In a way, you have a point. It's pretty obvious that Wikipedia is a wiki (hence the title), but there's no need to make a complete list from the start. If they do make a list, they should probably make another article. I mean, there are countless wikis on the web.
--Pyramid Productions (talk) 21:51, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia is a Wiki? (NO!) 

message: can anyone add this part?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.135.255.83 (talk) 10:50, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  what's wiki's mechanism? 

message: So from the article's statement that 
   "Wiki" (English pronunciation: /wiːkiː/) is a Hawaiian word for "fast"
I guess people can infer that "Wikipedia" refers to abstaining from knowledge, sort of the way "fast" means abstaining from food.  Or at least in this article it does.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.231.240.111 (talk) 11:59, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Definition of Wiki is self-referential 

message: Why is this article semi-protected? Whatever the reason, surly this insanely ironic fact is worthy of mention in the 'Trust and security' section as a prime example of the problems with wiki's (talk) 20:48, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protection? 

message: :Wiki → Wiki website — Wiki only means fast in the hawaiian language, "wiki" is not mentioned in the dictionary. The word is thus unreferenced and website should be added to give it some meaning. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.182.165.108 (talk) 14:29, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Wiki has entered the English language by now.—greenrd (talk) 14:35, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

text: Oppose.  This is the common name for the topic.  And, I hasten to point out, it is mentioned in the dictionary: .  Powers T 17:37, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

text: Oppose. The word is not unreferenced – see the references section. What the word means in Hawaiian is irrelevant, since we're only interested in what it means in English. Also, as pointed out above, "wiki" is mentioned in the dictionary. Jafeluv (talk) 18:43, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

text: Oppose Wiki in English refers exclusively to the website, and we already mention the Hawaiian word it's based on. --Cybercobra (talk) 20:07, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

text: Oppose — WP:COMMONNAME— V = I * R (talk) 22:10, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move 

message: The sentence that defines this term ("Wiki") defines it using by using itself.  I'm not convinced this makes the article useful.  Using a term to define itself has been identified as a "no-no" in each language and class where I've been a student, for -- a long time.
I intend to change it as soon as I find a defnition that is useful.  The list of examples for describing "useful" 1) won't have "useful" in it, and 2) will allow it to be compared with, for example, "Content Management System".
Kernel.package (talk) 17:26, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see how it's recursive. It uses the term "wiki software", but then immediately goes on to say what that software allows people to do. --Cybercobra (talk) 18:07, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I can see how it could be read as ambiguous; it's not 100% clear whether a wiki is a subset of all sites running wiki software (namely, that subset that "allows the easy creation and editing of any number of interlinked Web pages..."), or if that clause refers to all web sites running wiki software.  It may be better to reverse the order of the clauses: "A wiki is a website that allows the easy creation and editing of any number of interlinked web pages, powered by wiki software."  Powers T 13:36, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Definition is recursive 

message: Is http://www.wikidweb.com website part of the WIKI family?
this is a very serious topicreunited all of Europe through Christianity and how much his empire thrived under him.
	Charles the Great was born in the year 747 on April the Second in Herstal Wallonia. He was the child of Pepin the Short, Betrada of Laon and older than his brother Carloman. While in his childhood, he spoke Rhenish Franconia and Old High German, as he got older learned Latin. Charles’ appearance was quite intimidating; he was about seven feet 6 feet and 7 inches tall, sturdily built, and very handsome. Charlemagne. 
	Charlemagne is mainly known for adding land onto his Frankish empire and reuniting all of Europe through Christianity. He ruled from the beautiful city of Cologne in Germany and his massive empire consisted of Italy, 
Spain, Germany, France, and  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.102.94.141 (talk) 04:29, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wiki 

message: I think the section on trustworthiness misses the point.  The point it seems to make is "this should not work at all, but it kinda looks like it seems like it might, at least so far, so meh."  Not exactly a ringing endorsement.
I would argue it will work, and it will be trustworthy, and that this type of system has been under test for about 4 billion years.  Life evolved to the working examples that it is through random mutation and natural selection.  Wikis evolve through (usually) non-random and intelligent mutation and (usually) intelligent selection based on facts.  So it should not only work as well as evolution, it should work far better and far faster.  Just like there are people who assume evolution will not work, there are people who will assume a Wiki will not work, and probably for the same reasons (well, other than religion) -- because it seems complicated an esoteric with so much seemingly left to freedom and chance, when in fact the wikis are constantly selected back to the facts.  There may be some messiness and missteps along the way, but both systems will eventually arrive at working solutions.
I suppose, however, that at any given instant a wiki could have been vandalized and not fixed yet, so thus untrustworthy.  Unlikely, but quite possible.  So, perhaps the original section would be accurate, barring some technological solution.  Like coloring any change that is less than 24 hours old, or not reviewed or something.  Meh.
Skintigh (talk) 15:12, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trustworthiness 

message: I suggest you remove the paragraph quote from Lars Aronsson. It is pointless, adds nothing new that hasn't just been said the line before, and is not ecyclopedia style.
Lars Aronsson, a data systems specialist, summarizes the controversy as follows:
“ 	Most people, when they first learn about the wiki concept, assume that a Web site that can be edited by anybody would soon be rendered useless by destructive input. It sounds like offering free spray cans next to a grey concrete wall. The only likely outcome would be ugly graffiti and simple tagging, and many artistic efforts would not be long lived. Still, it seems to work very well.[7]  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.244.34.116 (talk) 10:33, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: In what way is it not "e[n]cyclopedia style"?  Powers T 15:24, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  remove Lars Aronsson quote 

message: The information in the first paragraph contradicts that in the third one. Unless there's objection, I'll remove the information in the third paragraph.
--TippTopp (talk) 14:09, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It would seem that.. the original Hawaiian is 'wiki'.. then a wiki is a 'wicky'.. and then wikipedia is 'wicca-pedia' for some reason. That's lazy American pronunciation for you. Giving the schwa more business...  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.73.70.113 (talk) 03:16, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I just go by Weird Al's pronunciation from White and Nerdy. Tisane (talk) 00:12, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contradictory Pronunciation Guide 

message: Wiki can also mean Wikipedia. For ex: If i type banana wiki, then i will be taken to the banana article on Wikipedia. -- User:Fdasfdsa12342  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fdsafdsa12342 (talk • contribs) 21:06, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: That's just because Wikipedia is by a far shot the most popular wiki out there.  Sorafune +1 04:51, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: See WP:NOTWIKI. I would imagine a large fraction of visitors to the Wiki article arrive by mistake, since to many if not most people "Wiki" (incorrectly) means "Wikipedia" now. Even though the Wiki article has a hatnote that links to Wiki (disambiguation), which mentions the incorrect usage, it might be worth having an additional hatnote to explicitly dispel what is becoming one of the most common misuses of the term "Wiki". --Teratornis (talk) 18:31, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Meanings 

message: We must improve this article which is also not a good article and is the most viewed on Wikipedia with 131,383 hits per day. Please help improve this improve this article to at least good article status. --Extra999 (talk) 16:34, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I have also posted a note the Help Desk. See here. --Extra999 (Contact me + contribs) 16:19, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Most viewed 

message: *http://www.computer.org/portal/web/csdl/doi/10.1109/ICIW.2008.76
*http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1254960.1255003
*Neumann, D. L., & Hood, M. (2009) The effects of using a wiki on student engagement and learning of report writing skills in a university statistics course. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 25(3), 382-398. info:/
*Trentin, G. (2009) Using a wiki to evaluate individual contribution to a collaborative learning project. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 25(1), 43-55. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2729.2008.00276.x   [Get full-text PDF from Pubget]
*COLE, M. (2009) Using Wiki technology to support student engagement: Lessons from the trenches. Computers , 52(1), 141-146. DOI: 10.1016/j.compedu.2008.07.003   [Get full-text PDF from Pubget]
*Cronin, J. (2008) Upgrading to Web 2.0: An Experiential Project to Build a Marketing Wiki. Journal of Marketing Education, 31(1), 66-75. DOI: 10.1177/0273475308329250   [Get full-text PDF from Pubget]
*Wheeler, S., Yeomans, P., & Wheeler, D. (2008) The good, the bad and the wiki: Evaluating student-generated content for collaborative learning. British Journal of Educational Technology, 39(6), 987-995. DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-8535.2007.00799.x   [Get full-text PDF from Pubget]
*http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1497399
*http://www.editlib.org/d/28725/proceeding_28725.pdf
Tisane (talk) 18:48, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Interesting-looking essays 

message: This article is one of a  number selected for the early stage of the trial of the Wikipedia:Pending Changes system on the English language Wikipedia. All the articles listed at Wikipedia:Pending changes/Queue   are being considered for level 1 pending changes protection.
The following request appears on that page:
Comments on the suitability of theis page for "Pending changes"  would be appreciated.
Please update the Queue page as appropriate.
Note that I am not involved in this project any much more than any other editor, just posting these notes since it is quite a big change, potentially
Regards, Rich Farmbrough, 00:38, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well, that seems to have made things worse with lots of annoying edits from unregistered users. Shritwod (talk) 14:23, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pending changes 

message: The backronym that is allegedly described in the inaccessible Economist reference, "what I know is", at the very least should be buried somewhere else later in the article rather than being paraded in the lede as though it is -- laughably -- of paramount relevance to a discussion of the word.
The etymology of "wiki" is not exactly disputed or lost to the mists of history. We know where this word came from. It came from the Hawaiian language. A single reference wherein someone with only peripheral connections to the subject matter carelessly invents a backronym does not justify the inclusion of this backronym with the same prominence as the known etymology of the word.
Frankly I believe my constructive edit is being reverted merely because I have chosen to make it from an IP address rather than logging in. This "pending edits" system is quite clearly an attempt to divide anonymous users into a disregarded underclass on Wikipedia.
Will no one discuss my edit? Will I merely be reverted by a cabal of semi-automated tools with no willingness to pursue the goals of this project? Has Wikipedia really fallen this far? 72.152.0.189 (talk) 08:10, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: What would you like to discuss? This is after all the talk page and the place to go when an edit you make is rejected for one reason or another... - 4twenty42o (talk) 08:15, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you have a compelling reason for the continued inclusion of this scrap of trivia, particularly at the top of the article? I am proposing a constructive edit. I will not violate 3RR and if you do not personally advocate the inclusion of this sentence, I encourage you to do the right thing -- undo your reversion of my edit. 72.152.0.189 (talk) 08:17, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

text: With none of the editors who have reverted my change willing to discuss this issue at present I will revert its undoing for a third and final time. 72.152.0.189 (talk) 08:35, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Googling reveals that the "what I know is" derivation is widely believed; therefore it may well be something readers are looking to check, and therefore - from a purely pragmatic perspective - it perhaps does make sense to make it prominent (to show that we are aware of this theory and we discount it).--Kotniski (talk) 08:57, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

text: As to the reverts, it didn't help that your initial edit attempt lacked an edit summary and that your justification on the second one was invalid. --Cybercobra (talk) 10:19, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  "what I know is" 

message: Some people claim "Wiki" also stands for "What I Know Is" but this is a false backronym.
"What I Know Is" is a true backronym, but a false acronym. "backronym" in the above text should be replaced with "acronym".  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.132.198.81 (talk) 15:47, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  "false backronym" 

message: Please add
because "discussion pages" redirects here
71.109.157.19 (talk) 17:21, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: "Discussion page(s)" has now been made a disambiguation page and no longer redirects anywhere. --Cybercobra (talk) 17:48, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request from 71.109.157.19, 11 October 2010 

message: The Wiki Communities section makes dead-link reference to a Flu Wiki which does not appear to exist any longer. I was able to find http://www.fluwikie.com, which does not appear to be a WIKI at all, and http://www.newfluwiki2.com, which MAY be the site the original author was intending, but I cannot confirm. At any rate, the apparent non-existence of this WIKI seems to make the entry superfluous.
Aboutimage (talk) 00:52, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Done - I agree that fluwikie.com is not a wiki at all at present.  However, it was a wiki as recently as 2008-08-22 02:02:26 per this archive.  The sole reference for the paragraph added in this edit 05:59, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request from Aboutimage, 23 November 2010 

message: Instead of using quotes you should use the HTML escaped: "
Also, should use the em tag instead of i tag  —Preceding unsigned comment added by MikeJ83 (talk • contribs) 06:07, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: MediaWiki does use  tags for italics, because they have no inherent semantic meaning other than "this should be italicized".  should only be used for emphasis. Those who need  tags should use the HTML when appropriate. Reach Out to the Truth 13:10, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  HTML equivalent is incorrect 

message: The current notoriety of wikileaks suggests to me that it should be mentioned (briefly) in this article, if only to say that it hasn't been an actual wiki for some time. --208.76.104.144 (talk) 06:54, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The WikiLeaks article already mentions that fact. Seems odd to point out a non-example here. --Cybercobra (talk) 07:35, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikileaks 

message: I believe that Wikipedia is mentioned rather oddly in this article. I think that the article should at least acknowledge the fact that this is Wikipedia. Sgt. Dynamo Jet (talk) 02:06, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: No, per WP:SELFREF. Consider downstream reusers of our content; that is no longer Wikipedia. --Cybercobra (talk) 03:28, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mention of Wikipedia 

message: I encountered this phrase on this page: its meaning is unclear (a good example of confusing which and that?).
 "...having JavaScript disabled prevents a user from implementing code, which may limit access for other users."
Is the intention to say  "...having JavaScript disabled prevents a user from implementing code that may limit access for other users.", meaning that someone could implement code preventing access, as I think is intended, or that having javascript disabled limits what someone can access?
I just noticed this as someone trying to learn what wiki is and how it works, with a view to getting involved in the community and setting up a specialized wiki. I am often an editor and tend to notice when unclear grammar can lead to ambiguity in meaning.
Thanks
129.85.134.143 (talk) 20:15, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request from 129.85.134.143, 13 January 2011 

message: I just cleaned up this page out of a lot of rubbish. Another user also did some of that. Do your fellow Wikipedians a favor, and respect talk page guidelines.Jasper Deng (talk) 01:24, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Talk page guidelines 

message: Does anyone know why WikiNode redirects here?  I am considering pointing it to Wikipedia:WikiNode.  Best, MarkDilley (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 10:58, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikiNode 

message: Misspelled word: replace "implemented softare package" with "implemented software package"
Djgiesbrecht (talk) 10:30, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: This has now been done, thanks. Mr. Credible (talk) 10:32, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request from Djgiesbrecht, 3 May 2011 

message: There are websites talking about a 2nd generation of wikis.
* http://www.xwiki.com/xwiki/bin/view/Product/WhyXWiki
* http://platform.xwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Main/SecondGenerationWiki
Need a new section about emerging trends ? Yug (talk) 23:58, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I wouldn't consider this an emerging trend because I would need to see other wiki softwares take up the concept. The "2nd-generation" thing seems to be nothing more than a marketing ploy.Jasper Deng (talk) 16:00, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Future of the Wiki technology 

message: The note numer 20, has a link "Introducing Web 2.0: wikis for health librarians" with https. Althought the final link is really this one, changing the link to http (without s) looks better because it avoid the firefox message "warning, this connexion is not certified". Voilà.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.47.0.71 (talk) 08:15, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request 

message: Is a Wiki a What You See is What You Get system? I thought it was a What You MEAN is What You Get. It just make more sense to me...
Thanks for your feedback,
Japenagosc (talk) 15:19, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you mean WYSIWYM? Nope, wikis that have WYSIWYG editing interfaces typically are WYSIWYG editors. I know of one WYSIWYM editor for MediaWiki, but I've never seen it used. Not that most wikis don't use WYSIWYG or anything similar though. Usually it's done using a "simplified markup language", as the article says. Reach Out to the Truth 17:00, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  WYSIWYG or WYMIWYG? 

message: wiki is a collection of web pages 
Sajal25485 (talk) 06:47, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. --Jnorton7558 (talk) 13:45, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request from , 12 November 2011 

message: wiki is basicaly website where we can read the information and give suggetion...!!
22bharat kumar (talk) 06:53, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. --Jnorton7558 (talk) 13:45, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request from , 12 November 2011 

message: Someone put in a load of pictures like this, all with different names, and nothing else. Strange, I removed them. Please give reasons for editing talk pages! OrbiterSpacethingy (talk) 08:28, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Strange talk addition removed 

message: Not done: Not a valid request. — Senator2029║talk 19:39, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request on 29 November 2011 

message: Hey everyone, new wikipedian here,
I was looking for a good explanation of what a "wiki" is for someone who is not a computer person, and I just realized that I can't send them this article. Currently, the introduction reads,
:A wiki (i/ˈwɪki/ wik-ee) is a website that allows the creation and editing of any number of interlinked web pages via a web browser using a simplified markup language or a WYSIWYG text editor.[1][2][3] Wikis are typically powered by wiki software and are often used collaboratively by multiple users. Examples include community websites, corporate intranets, knowledge management systems, and note services. The software can also be used for personal notetaking.
This is packed with way too much detail for an introductory sentence! It needs to explain a wiki first in laymans terms, and then expand into specific information later in the article. For example, "interlinked web pages" and "simplified markup language or a WYSIWYG text editor" is specific information that not everybody understands easily. The article's introduction should be easy to understand; that way the article is useful for everybody. It could be changed to something like, 
:A wiki is a website that allows anyone to add, create, modify, or edit information to improve it. It was created [somedate] by [someperson] to let information on the web improve more rapidly through easy user contribution. Wiki in hawaiian means "quick." The most famous example of a website using wiki software is Wikipedia, the online encyclopedia.
:Contents
:1. History
:2. Characteristics (technical information like WYSIWYG appears somewhere here)
:3. rest of the article
Would that be ok?--Semitones (talk) 16:41, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Erm, the "markup language" part is rather integral to the definition. The OED definition of wiki is 1 sentence long, and it concludes with (and I quote verbatim): "using a simplified markup language." --Cybercobra (talk) 01:42, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

text: And "web browser" is specifically mentioned by Dictionary.com's definition. I have managed to replace "WYSIWYG" and trim some verbiage though. --Cybercobra (talk) 02:08, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Introduction is Too Complicated 

message: Wiki is the anglicization of the Hawaiian wikiwiki.
75.84.200.25 (talk) 19:54, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the response. I'll look it up and provide a good reference for you. 75.84.200.25 (talk) 22:42, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: An interesting thought; I'll ask my Polynesian friends. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 11:53, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request on 29 January 2012 

message: Other large wikis include the WikiWikiWeb, Memory Alpha, Wikitravel, World66 and Susning.nu, a Swedish-language knowledge base.
Susning.nu shut down in 2009, WikiWikiWeb and World66 are not even linked. These three are no longer (or never have been) "large" and IMO should be removed. There are a number of successful wikis that would qualify for mention as examples here, based upon number of articles and contributors. Plutonium27 (talk) 16:30, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Communities section 

message: Is there a page related to wikipedia's finances? Because this is something important, and there seems to be no mention of this anywhere on this page. 
If one exists, a link-back would be nice.
¬¬¬¬ Anon. 18/03/2012
:This article is about wikis in general, of which Wikipedia is only one example. Therefore this is not quite the right place for the question. Nevertheless, let me point you to the annual reports, monthly reports and financial reports of the Wikimedia Foundation, the nonprofit which operates Wikipedia. Regards, HaeB (talk) 13:39, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wiki Finance 

message: The first sentence says ˈwɪkiː/ WIK-ee, and later it says the Hawaiian word is "(pronounced [ˈwiti] or [ˈviti])". So technically this should be said that way. Enigmamsg 16:24, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pronunciation 

message: Pse close the parentheses.  It's needed at the end of the paragraph that starts with the word "Ward".
I know this is minor but I don't see a way to edit the first part.  Many thanks.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theresavalek (talk • contribs) 03:50, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The parantheses are closed: (pronounced [ˈwiti] or [ˈviti]) --NeilN talk to me 03:55, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please close the parentheses at the end of the second paragraph. 

message: At the bottom of the page in either references or "further reading" there should be a link to the C2 wiki page.  That way people can see another take on "wiki" if they're interested in exploring it's less rigid more free  form and "stream of consciousness" style of presenting information.  Also it should be there to at least acknowledge what the page itself purports as the original.  It has Ward Cunninghams picture but a not a link to the wiki on the C2 website.  Seriously.  There is a brief mention of C2.com in the first paragraph and that's it.  It's not some academic example in a museum somewhere, it's still an active populated wiki on the web.
- maybe they don't want the extra traffic though?
I dunno.
H  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.235.73.241 (talk) 13:26, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  No link to the original wiki 

message: "Wiki" in Hawaiian means "quick". I remember reading this here on Wikipedia once, and finding it a book about Pacific Island languages. The pages says it means "fast" which though is the same thing to an extent, is not what I originally read, thus it is confusing me a bit. TomUSA 18:13, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Given the inherent ambiguities of language translation, "quick" and "fast" mean the same to me in this context —Senator2029 | talk 17:46, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Wiki" in Hawaiian