Talk:Wiki/Archive 1

message: Currently over forty wikis are listed in the Wiki communities section of the article.  I believe this is too many and it will likely grow even bigger in the future.  What I suggest is either the number is reduced to say five representative Wikis or else the list is spun off into its own article e.g. List of Wikis or List of Wiki websites.  Currently I am favouring the second option.  Also what is the plural of Wiki?  As it comes from a polynesian language, then I would guess that Wiki is the plural. -- Popsracer 04:00, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. It's a long list of many wiki: list of wiki. It seems redundant to keep more-or-less identical lists (here and WorldWideWiki: SwitchWiki), Biggest wikis ... but how should I choose "representative" wiki ? Won't someone be upset they were left out ? -- DavidCary 19:06, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wiki communities section 

message: Could I invite someone to try to improve the opening sentence. I've tried and cannot get something perfect but the "others" at the end is a bit vague. "editing is open to a wide group of people, often everybody"?--BozMo|talk 13:03, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Opening Sentence 

message: New nit-pits, or questions really.  Is US-English preferred over British?  I keep running into words I think are misspelled and they turn out to be proper British spellings.  I don't want to appear Amero-centric but at least an article should be consistent.  Realise is one I ran into here.  --KSnortum 01:36, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  British or American? 

message: Wikipedia:Wiki is often used to refer people, new to wiki, to explain what wiki is and we, at our wiki, link here in the opening sentence of our main page.  However, users clicking through are confronted by quite a crowded description.  The thing which seems most obviously excessive is all the pronunciation information - it's detracting from this page's main function.  I propose losing all but the link to the pronounciation section (if even that is necessary, so early into an entry).  It would seem a shame to have to link elsewhere. --Darrel Stadlen 15:32, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can we make the introduction a bit more friendly? 

message: I have the same question.
:Well you get a server ,install a wiki software and establish an internet connection... that's how you do it. Wiki's just (technically) a server application... Or do you mean the WikiWikiWeb?--Kakurady 14:15, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Technically has little to do with it, and community is more than the question. Rossmay--Rossmay 04:48, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  How Does One First Create a WIKI community? 

message: I actually came to this page wondering if there was a icon or symbol commonly used to represent a Wiki.  Does anyone know if such an icon exists, or perhaps have any ideas as to what one could look like?  I've tried a Google image search but to little avail -- the best perhaps being a Wiki book cover which featured a sort of 3D representation of the infinity sign, which is in my opinion still a pretty poor attempt.  It would be great to have a graphic that conveyed a message of liquidity and expanse of information, but doing so in an easily understood and simple manner does not sound like an easy task ...
--Shp0ng1e 18:15, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wiki Icon 

message: The article currently says,
:Also, ʻāwīwī in the Hawaiian is used in place of wiki, Wiki, wikiwiki or Wikiwiki.
I've never seen this, and none of the Wiki-theory sites I know (Ward's, Meatball, CommunityWiki) have a reference for it, either.
I guess the point this sentence is trying to make is that āwīwī is a synonym for "wiki" in Hawaiian, and that it means quick in Hawaiian. I think that's probably cogent on :haw:wiki but not on :en:Wiki.
I'm removing the sentence, but I'd be open to a citation that shows that āwīwī is actually used as a synonym for "wiki" in English. --ESP 17:04, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Words that are synonyms in Hawaiian are not necessarily synonyms in English 

message: This page needs additional votes toward the Article Improvement Drive.  Squideshi 22:41, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  AID Votes Needed 

message: What about the concept of collabarative development and information gathering prior to the software application? For example, a notice board for travelers or a central place for say a village to collect stories etc? zen master T 21:48, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wiki concept prior to software 

message: I merged some content from it into the article as per its AFD debate. Johnleemk | Talk 11:33, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WikiNode]] redirects here 

message: I Am on a Public at a highschool, our teacher makes us use wikipedia for everything as i am a senior and contributor to wiki, i am on here editing vandalism by the freshman,sophmore,juniors. I apologize for this and please keep that in mind from this IP address. I have an account on wikipedia, Lorddemon. Contact me via user talk if you have any questions - This is me.Lorddemon 15:27, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sorry 

message: A lot of the content on this page seems to apply to specific implementations as opposed to wiki generally. For example: user-editable "source code", which is also the format stored locally on the server I don't know of any wiki that specifically doesn't store the wikitext, but it's conceivable that some implementation would not, and would instead preserve the "parsed" markup. Perhaps I'm being too picky, but other examples exist as well. I believe the example has already been mentioned about implementations that regularly purge old histories. I think a small effort should be made to make it clear when certain features, even if highly common, may be implementation specific, and do not actually apply to wiki in general. My $0.02 Bmearns 20:00, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Context should be more General 

message: but they don't all preserve all changes for very long. I know on CommunityWiki where I'v been working lately they only keep revisions about 2 weeks or so. a lott MeatballWiki pages, too. you click on other revsions and there are like none available. so, I might wann change the fourth paragraph to refelct that tho I haven't read most of this article yet. skizznologic3.1 19:56, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  I'm still gettin to know other wiki's 

message: Wikipedia is used in many examples throughout the text, but it's not until toward the end that it's explained what it is and why it may be relevant.  Should a quick blurb at its first use (such as "Wikipedia, a wiki-based encyclopedia, ..." be included?  Granted, people will probably know what it is, seeing as this article is posted *on* wikipedia.  However, from the standpoint of the article, it shouldn't immediately be assumed that the reader knows what wikipedia is.  Especially since this article could appear elsewhere (given that it's liscenced under GFDL).  So I added a blurb along these lines in the article.  Thoughts?
--Matthew0028 22:29, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree  you. We shouldn't assume that the reader of this article knows or have heard of wikipedia, or that the reader is reading it here. Shanes 22:39, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia examples 

message: This sounds a lot like the concept of information annealing (where I added a reference to the concept of wikis in the preexisting wiki entry for information annealing), am I right? (I wish you had a keyword search applying to one wiki entry only so that I could quickly find whether information annealing is mentioned in the wiki entry, for example.)
--Digression from a tangent 22:29, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The search function you request is included in your web browser, press ctrl-f on Microsoft Windows machines to access it.  -- stillnotelf is invisible 02:59, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Information annealing 

message: I notice that this page has recently been protected from editing by newer users, presumably because of vandalism. I would suggest that given the uncontroversial nature of the subject being detailed this article is attracting new vandals because of the way it is accessed through firefox (and perhaps other browsers as well). Until recently, typing "wiki" into the address bar of Firefox brought up the main page of Wikipedia, and now it brings up this. Any vandals which might otherwise have gone to the protected main page now come here. It's not a problem for people like me who generally only check their watchlist, but it might be wise to figure out why "wiki" now comes here, and change it back if possible given that most people who type it will be looking for Wikipedia, rather than this particular article. - Hayter 20:35, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just a side note to Firefox's behavior: when a user types a term into the address bar that is not a URI, Firefox does an I'm-Feeling-Lucky Google search on that particular term. Googling "wiki" brings up this page as the first result and is, therefore, the I'm-Feeling-Lucky result. So basically this behavior is dependent upon Google rather than Firefox. Vordhosbn 15:52, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Wiki" in Firefox 

message: as users are bound to add incorrect information to the wiki page is easily misread conceptually as as users are [legally] bound to add incorrect information to the wiki page.  Changing to incorrect or disputed might help bounce the covert legally more quickly.  Another option: are soon bound.  MaxEnt 21:37, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Poor phrasing 

message: I think that the term 'wiki' used throughout the article ought to be debolded. The article lacks consistency in the bolding of the term 'wiki'. --Porqin 18:48, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wiki 

message: This article explains how Wiki software is a simplification of HTML, and gives a diagram to show differences between these sources of software. Can some one please explain why it is, if Wikipedia uses wiki software as opposed to HTML, that the address for a wikipedia site begins with the initials for "hypertext protocol"? Also, should't this article have the section stating that Wikis follow true hypertext be removed, because, if wikis are written in wiki software and not  hypertext mark-up language, the links in such media are "Wikilinks" and not "hyperlinks"? ACEO 19:18, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: HTTP is for the transfer of hypertext (naturally), the information transferred to your computer from the web server IS in HTML (check the source code by going Tools >> View Source (in IE). Wiki's are written in wiki markup language and saved to a database. Upon request the wiki markup language is parsed into HTML (changing Water to <a href="/wiki/Water">Water</a> and Text to Text). Wikis don't use use wiki software as opposed to HTML, wiki software just changes user inputted wiki markup into hypertext markup (and user inputted wikilinks to hypertext links). -- Tsuite T/C 12:04, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Query about website address 

message: The capitalization of Wiki/wiki seems to be pretty random.
Or is there a pattern that I just haven't noticed yet? --Frescard
I think "wiki" should always be lowercase when referring to wiki in general (unless it's the first word of a sentence).
--68.0.120.35 16:02, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Capitalization 

message: In this section it's noted that:
: "Many people switch between wiki engines, from one to another. Because of the difficulty in using several syntaxes, many people are putting considerable effort into defining a wiki markup standard (see efforts by Meatball and TikiWiki)."
Having followed the links, it is not clear at all that many people -- that's a WP:Weasel phrase -- are putting in effort. I don't think it is true. And it's not clear Meatball or TikiWiki are actually trying to make a standard -- TikiWiki is simply defining its own standard and Meatball has a short list of bullet points a couple of Meatballers have posted. That is not "putting in considerable effort". This whole section is weasely. Hence will be doing a harsh edit on this in a second. — Donama 05:43, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I remember a standardization thing a while back (there was a mailing list and such with various wiki authors and we discussed it a bit). It never took off, unfortunately. I'm guessing it is more due to lack of time in the parties involved then lack of effort. To be honest, this whole article looks like it was written five years ago... mayby I can update it a bit... RN 07:32, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wiki markup section 

message: === Wikify Redirect ===
This redirect is unhelpful.  I want to know the syntax to mark an article that needs wikifying.  Entering 'wikify' as a search word should take me to a something looking like  instead of here. JMcC 16:31, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It means the same thing for wikis as blogosphere does for blogs – Qxz 16:15, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  redirects to "wiki" 

message: This redirect is unhelpful.  I want to know the syntax to mark an article that needs wikifying.  Entering 'wikify' as a search word should take me to a something looking like  instead of here. JMcC 16:31, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It means the same thing for wikis as blogosphere does for blogs – Qxz 16:15, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikify Redirect 

message: This article is fat with opinion, to the point of contradicting itself. The reason is that some of the article's authors seem intent on promoting an ideology.
"Most wikis are open to the general public without the need to register any user account."
"There is arguably greater use of wikis behind firewalls than on the public Internet."
"The open philosophy of most wikis..."
Most? Would that be the most that are open to the general public or the most that are "arguably" behind firewalls? 
"It is therefore better to promote plain-text editing with a few simple conventions for structure and style."
"It is somewhat beneficial that users cannot directly use all the capabilities of HTML, such as JavaScript and Cascading Style Sheets."
It is better to promote one form of editing for what purpose? It is beneficial to whom? MudBath 07:59, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Patent falsehoods promote philosophy 

message: The 1970s Saturday morning television science fiction series Jason of Star Command  featured a pocket-sized robot designated "W.1.K.1." and referred to a s "wiki" in dialogue. A screenshot image of the filming prop is here . As far as I have been able to determine, there is no connection between this use of the term wiki and the usage discussed elsewhere in this entry. Should it be added as a second definition/description?
Lonn.myronuk 17:15, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  wiki was a scifi robot 

message: Today, Richdex the Open Free Online Directory is, by far, the world's largest wiki; the English-language Wikipedia is the second-largest
I have a very hard time buying this assertion. It looks to me like Richdex is a Google-ad filled wikipedia wannabe. Unless someone can demonstrate otherwise, I suspect that this is simply an empty boast to drive traffic to the ad content.
I especially have a hard time believing that the team of 132 users have been able to generate 3.9 million articles in the nine months since the domain name was registered. Now a computer program generating individual pages filled with google ads... That I can believe. But I don't think it should count a viable wiki to be listed here. --Pwiscombe 19:48, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Richdex ??? 

message: I hate it when an encyopedia or dictionary refers to itself and doesn't say "this one" or something. Course I can't edit it because I am guest and too lazy to create an account.—Preceding unsigned comment added by  (talk • contribs) 
:That would be a self-reference, which should not only be avoided, but sounds very, very, very unprofessional. We are not referring to ourselves, you must be confused with Wikipedia. -- Chris is me (u/c/t) 16:17, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Add "like this one" before "Wikipedia" in 1st paragraph 

message: Sorry that I had to semi-protect the Wiki article... it's kinda ironic, huh? -- Chris is me (u/c/t) 16:17, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protection 

message: I can't see why wiki should be under wiki project hawaii. I know wiki means quick in hawaiian but this article is about the type of website not the hawaiian word. Da Big Bozz 01:16, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wiki project hawaii? 

message: I would like to request that a wiki be made. Does anyone know where/who I should ask about this? I don't think I can do it myself: firstly, I don't know how, and secondly, I have very little computer-related knowledge. I left 2 other posts like this: one on the main page talk page and one on the LOTR portal talk page. Sorry if this's a stupid/rude question. 72.72.65.127 02:16, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Never mind. My question has been answered on both those other pages. Thank you! 72.72.65.127 19:39, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Creating a wiki 

message: This article discusses the first wiki (as it should).
I think this article should go on to mention something about the next few wiki.
I have heard rumors that, when the second wiki (or was it the third wiki?) was set up, dozens of pages were moved (not copied) to it from the first wiki. There was some controversy between people who were glad to get rid of those pages, and other people who wanted to keep those pages on the original wiki.
Perhaps the "history" section should also compare it to other Internet forums active around that time. Usenet was the biggest internet forum at that time (and its Eternal September had just begun). h2g2, 2channel were started a few years after the first wiki.
Perhaps the "history" section could also compare it to other hypertext editing systems that were becoming popular around that time, such as HyperCard.
The names of the first few wiki were ... ?
--68.0.120.35 15:06, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wiki history: the first few wiki 

message: WikiIndex http://www.wikiindex.org/Wiki_Index seems like the best resource for information about all the different wikis.  Still needs more info and organization, but hopefully will become a central tool for us all.--69.87.200.20 15:01, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikiIndex 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Define wiki 

message: 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", ? Btw., in that case, Alexander Warta has been omitted. Tierlieb 12:21, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "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)

text: "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)
thread_title:  Source for Lars Aronsson quote 

message: "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)
thread_title:  "these systems could be easily tampered with" 

message: Merge guerilla wiki here as proposed by User:16@r on 30 October 2007.  
:Support -- I feel this article would benefit from a section wikis in the corporate setting and the material on guerilla 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)
replies: text: Support Would make an excellent subsection. Agree with MaxEnt regarding guerilla wiki's current content.--Hu12 (talk) 21:39, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Guerilla merge 

message: 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)
thread_title:  'See also' section 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Spirit of the wiki or spirit of wiki - why is it not in Wikipedia? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Re: "Definitely not a software engine by that entry's definition." 

message: Does anyone know why this article gets so many hits, 3 000 000 a day .  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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Hits per day 

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

message: This page is the target of 20 redirects, not bad... 16@r (talk) 13:16, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There are actually 38 redirects, 20 are on the first page. --Unixguy (talk) 18:45, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Redirects 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Edit conflict resolution 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Use in education 

message: Sorry, I see it was a bad idea to remove the protection, so it's back again.  -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:57, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protection 

message: "Wikipedia is one of the best known wikis." I'd like this to have a new citation. Is it doable? Or is it still recent enough to be considered good?Beam (talk) 03:54, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lack of Recent Citation 

message: Unless it's supposed to mean "well-known," isn't this POV? 71.246.222.208 (talk) 19:25, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Best known or best-known? 

message: This article is in a very sad state. It lost nearly a third of all of its information in a single vandalism event, here, and no one has caught it until now? That's ridiculous. Gary King (talk) 03:40, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article is in a sorry state 

message: In this edit, a user changed the definition completely, from 
: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.
to
:A wiki is computer software that allows users to easily edit, create, and link web pages.
- with no other reference or justification than exclaiming "Medium? It's software.", apparently unaware of the Wikipedia principle that information should be based on reliable sources, not personal opinions. (It also contradicts most of the rest of the article, and the fact that there is a separate entry about Wiki software.)
For the word "wiki" as it is used today, all the reliable sources that I am aware of give a version of the first definition, e.g. the Oxford English Dictionary:
:A type of web page designed so that its content can be edited by anyone who accesses it, using a simplified markup language. 
or the Britannica article:
:World Wide Web (WWW) site that can be modified or contributed to by users. Wikis can be dated to 1995, when American computer programmer Ward Cunningham created a new collaborative technology for organizing information on Web sites. Using a Hawaiian term meaning “quick,” he called this new software WikiWikiWeb ...
It is true that Cunningham used "wiki" initially to denote one specific program, his first implementation of the concept around 1995:
:I named the technology WikiWikiWeb. [...] My first implementation was as a Unix program, which are traditionally radically abbreviated and all lower case: cal for Calendar. So, following this convention, my first implementation of WikiWikiWeb technology was with a program named wiki. This shows up in the URL for the site and has become the shorthand term for the technology.
In "the technology", it is not specified if the medium or the software is meant, but further down he seems to indicate that he is talking about the medium:
:I wanted an unusual word to name for what was an unusual technology. I was not trying to duplicate any existing medium, like mail, so I didn't want a name like electronic mail (email) for my work.
In any case, the prevalent usage today seems to be the medium, not the software (similar to database vs. database management system). 
That seems also to have been the conclusion of the publishers of the OED, to whom the above correspondence of Ward Cunningham was directed.  
Regards, High on a tree (talk) 17:13, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I notice the mention about 'knowledge management' is still in the lead. I'm not sure if that should belong there or not? Gary King (talk) 17:20, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Definition 

message: I need to clarify.  The differences between a Wiki and a Content Management System was previously present in this article and was removed.  I propose putting it back.
The information about differences between a Wiki and a Content Management System is valuable information (assuming it is accurate).  If this information is not provided here then is it available somewhere else?  If it is not found in another location then it does need to exist somewhere and I suggest that it be returned to this article (though I believe the wording could be cleaned up).
Here is the information that was removed for reference:
Wikis have shared and encouraged certain features with generalized content management systems (CMS), which are used by enterprises and communities-of-practice. Those looking to compare a CMS with an enterprise wiki should consider these basic features:[citation needed]
   1. The name of an article is embedded in the hyperlink.
   2. Articles can be created or edited at anytime by anyone (with certain limitations for protected articles).
   3. Articles are editable through the web browser.
   4. Each article provides one-click access to the history/versioning page, which also supports version differencing ("diff") and retrieving prior versions.
   5. The most recent additions/modifications of articles can be monitored actively or passively.
   6. Easy revert of changes is possible.
None of these are particular to a wiki, and some have developed independently. Still the concept of a wiki unequivocally refers to this core set of features. Taken together, they fit the generative nature of the Internet, in encouraging each user to help build it.[17] It is yet to be studied whether an enterprise wiki encourages more usage, or leads to more knowledgeable community members, than other content management systems'''
Uniquenamessuck (talk) 20:03, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Differences between Wiki and Content Management Systems 

message: I believe we should not use a screenshot of wikipedia as a citation but as a noncitation.  that would be okay on a wiki, but not on an encyclopedia or in mexico.
currently the picture is of wikipedia's "vitamin c" article.  unless there are any valid philosophical disagreements, i will take the inwanted inferior liberty of changing it to something from another wiki on tuesday.
--Harlequence 14:19, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  the comparison picture