Talk:Wiki/Archive 3

message: How will we ever fix vandalism on wiki?
I have deleted this discussion because this talk page is not for discussing the pros and cons of Wikipedia, it is for discussing how to improve the Wiki article on Wikipedia. Please note the difference between Wiki and Wikipedia. Wiki is NOT short for Wikipedia.—greenrd 00:02, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism 

message: Hi all,
I am delisting this article as a good article because I feel it does not conform to the well-written requirement of the good article criteria. My problems with the article are pretty much entirely focused on the lead, so they should not be too hard to fix. Specifically:
* The term "*A template" is introduced without proper explanation of the term (or a wikilink).
* There is a stray bullet point in the lead.
* Wikitext is quoted and italicised in contrast to the Wikipedia manual of style.
* The table, while certainly appropriate and helpful, interrupts the lead (as does its caption attributing the quote).
However my problem is not just with the style of the lead. Overall, I found the lead difficult to read. I think there are probably some good elements in the lead but it needs to be rewritten with a real focus on introducing the article to those who may not be familiar with the subject. Please feel free to renominate the article once these issues have been addressed or you can seek a review if you disagree with my objections.
Cedars 02:41, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reasons for delisting 

message: I hear "I'll wiki this" or "Just wiki it to find out..." a lot now.  Has anyone else run into this use? SpikeZoft 06:51, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A nominalized form of this verb appears in: Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikify. Some people use "wiki" as an adjective, particularly in negation ("an unwiki page", "an unwiki policy"). The word acts as a modifier in the title: The Wiki Way. --Teratornis 18:48, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Wiki" as a verb 

message: From the section History: "Wiki Wiki" is a reduplication of "wiki", a Hawaiian-language word for fast. The word wiki is a shorter form of wiki wiki (weekie, weekie).
That's contradictory.  So is "wiki" a shorter form of "wiki wiki", or is "wiki wiki" a reduplication of "wiki"? What is original, and what is derived? -- 131.111.8.96 01:35, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd say it means the term "wiki wiki," as in the bus line and original software WikiWikiWeb, is a reduplication.  However (in terms of the software), this would be an awkward name and was thus colloquially shortened to "wiki," coincidentally the original Hawaiian word. akuyumeTC 02:35, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I had just read buried somewhere in Wikipedia that "Wiki" was named after "Twiki" the "know-it-all" talking robot in Buck Rogers. I'm relieved, I guess. Something, somewhere needs to come from something other than nostalgia for US pop culture.  (Didn't Gilligan say "wiki" in episode #. . .")
Vagabundus
I personally find it extremely difficult to believe that the word "wiki," which is so phonetically similar to the word "quickly," just happens to coincidentally be a "Hawaiian-language word for fast." I don't find it hard to believe that it is or was commonly used as such, but would like to submit for consideration the possiblity that it is a pidgin corruption of the english word "quickly." I have nothing to support this conjecture beyond my native skepiticism. Sorry. ScottGPDX 07:11, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Origin of the term 

message: There is a very interesting article on creating a "sales pitch" for introducing a wiki system at an organization:
http://scratchpad.wikia.com/wiki/Wiki_sales_pitch
This article contains
* Basics (definition and history)
* Fields of Application
* Pros & Cons
* Syntax Examples
It's currently hosted by the Wikia Scratchpad, but I believe it should be moved to a more permanent (or prominent) location.
Any ideas?
-- F.D. 09:23, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is the discussion page for the article wiki, not the subject of the article or the contents of articles on other wikis. Furthermore, Wikipedia is not affiliated with Wikia. This is not the correct place (or even the correct website) for discussion of Wikia pages – Qxz 08:03, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wiki sales pitch 

message: Comparison table of policies and other interesting attributes of general-reference wikis in English (with over 1,000 articles).
                                  	Wikipedia              	Wikinfo                                       	Wikiknowledge
Size (articles)                   	1,608,984              	35,923(but mostly importedand little modified)	1,812
traffic / SearchEngine ranking    	                       	                                              	
Google PageRank                   	9/10                   	0/10                                          	0/10
Average # edits per day           	~300,000               	~50                                           	~10
Admins/Registered users           	1,101/3,389,730        	26/1,879                                      	7/100
Who can edit                      	Anonymous              	Registered only                               	Anonymous
License                           	GFDL                   	CC - Creative Commons                         	PD - Public Domain
Scope                             	general-reference      	general-reference-plus                        	general-reference-plus
POV                               	NPOV                   	SPOV                                          	NPOV
Standard                          	Verifiable             	Truth                                         	Truth?
Notability                        	Non-Notable excluded   	inclusive                                     	inclusive
Original Research                 	excluded               	invited                                       	OK
Self-commentary                   	COI discouraged        	permitted                                     	???
Offensive (sexual)                	permitted              	(unresolved)                                  	No censorship
Boldness                          	Be Bold                	Be Bold, but..                                	Be Bold
Rules                             	Ignore the rules       	Please read the rules                         	??
Software used                     	MediaWiki              	GetWiki                                       	MediaWiki
Archived by 3rd party?            	Many unofficial mirrors	??                                            	No
database download published online	Yes                    	??                                            	No
Notes: Statistics as of 29jan07.  If they are more than 30 days out of date, please update them.
Anonymous - OpenEdit - Anyone can edit content, without registration 
Registered only - LoginToEdit - Registration required 
GFDL - GNU Free Documentation License 
NPOV - Neutral point of view 
SPOV - Sympathetic point of view 
COI - Conflict of interest 
http://en.wikipedia.org.ezproxy.auckland.ac.nz/ ...
http://www.wikinfo.org/ ...
http://www.wikiknowledge.net/wiki/
other:
http://opencycle.vacommunity.net/ 61 pages
future questions:
Archived by archive.org?
Additional resources:
http://meta.wikimedia.org.ezproxy.auckland.ac.nz/wiki/List_of_largest_wikis ...
http://www.wikiindex.org/Wiki_Index
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.87.200.20 (talk) 15:04, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmmm. Given that Wikiknowledge doesn't even have an article here (and 1,812 articles isn't a lot, smaller than some fairly obscure language editions of Wikipedia), perhaps that's better avoided. Also, this article is about wikis, not general-reference wikis specifically. A better place for comparisons between different Wikipedia and different encyclopedias is Wikipedia, but that already has an extensive discussion of the subject – Qxz 15:44, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'd suggest Citizendium, but since that won't even let you register unless you have a PhD in everything, it's hardly the same sort of project. Perhaps it would be better if any 'comparison' that is made compares a range of wikis used for different purposes. Reference is not the only use of a wiki; the first wikis were communities too, and in some cases that's the main purpose of a wiki. I'm not a great fan of tables when a few paragraphs of text would suffice, either – Qxz 15:47, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia Wikinfo Wikiknowledge: comparison table 

message: Why does talk page redirect to this article? —tregoweth (talk) 20:31, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you have a better suggestion for a target (bearing in mind that redirecting articles to project pages seems to be discouraged)? – Qxz 18:35, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Talk page]] redirect 

message: I saw a line appear saying "nerds are still cool" i came back 2 minutes later, and someone must have repaired it —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Paul527 (talk • contribs) 05:03, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, they did. This article gets quite a bit of that, unfortunately, but it's usually fixed quickly – Qxz 18:35, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  more vandalism 

message: I couldn't see this in the article, how can someone like me start a Wiki? Me and other people at this messageboard would like to start a Wiki where we can decide what the rules and guidelines are, and have articles the way we want. TJ Spyke 05:23, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A number of wiki hosting services are available, some free and some not; see Wiki farm, List of wiki farms and Comparison of wiki farms – Qxz 18:38, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Starting a Wiki 

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

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

message: The trustworthiness is so full of typos and bad English, including in the quotation, that I am wondering if it's a piece of subtle vandalism. Any opinions? Owen 08:47, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually it is a careless addition. Can you please fix the english. --Aminz 08:46, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I made an edit, and so did someone else, and it is now not quite so bad. Owen 08:54, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trustworthiness section 

message: I can't figure out what this sentence is trying to say: The client-side wiki system parallels HTML in that the page becomes a rendering instruction for the browser to interpret.
Actually, I did just figure it out, but I think it could be reworded. Any thoughts? HeirloomGardener 18:45, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Neither did I. -- by DealtDream 15:42, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Server-side versus client-side wiki section 

message: The article conflates open-source wikis [those whose wiki scripts or content are freely available] with open access wikis [those anyone can edit]. Vandalism and inaccuracies tend to be problems of open access wikis; whether these wikis' scripts are open source is a different issue.
67.168.248.185 03:50, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed. I'm not sure open access is the right term to use, particularly as many readers won't be sure what it means, so I used a simpler form of words instead.—greenrd 09:49, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

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

message: When the article says Wikipedia relies on the "goodness of people", that could be construed as a naive dependence on the goodness of *everyone*, in all circumstances.  I humbly submit that it read "the goodness of people on average" or "as a whole". Like democratic systems of government, universities, and just about every other useful system we have.
  As one who was originally quite dubious of the concept, I think this would be slightly more convincing and more accurate, and do more to evangelize the system.
Forrestschaaf 19:43, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The goodness of people *on average* 

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

message: The second statement in the "Etymology and meaning" section doesn't make sense.  Wikipedia has not been designed to be quick and easy to use because the word "wiki" means "quick" in Hawaiian.  Wikipedia has been designed to be quick and easy to use, and the use of "wiki" is simply appropriate.  The "therefore" in the second sentence should be deleted.  The two statements will still retain enough semantic connection to make sense when read together.
Then again, there's so much discussion of the word "wiki" in the History section that this Etymology section could be deleted. Else the etymological material should be moved to the Etymology section. Dsleaton 17:37, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Etymology and meaning 

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

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

message: Consider adding the following:
A 1995 article in Nature magazine concluded that Wikipedia was about as accurate as Encyclopedia Britannica , though the article is dispute by Britannica .
Richinomicron 17:49, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The article was not in 1995, it was in 2005. Other than that, I think this is a valid addition.—greenrd 18:38, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've disabled the edit protect as this page is only semi-protected and does not require an admin to make this edit. - auburnpilot talk 03:18, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Accuracy