Talk:Wiki/Archive 4

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
← Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 →

Contents

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)