Talk:Wiki

This is not the page to post new encyclopedia content to or to ask general questions!
	This page is only for discussion of the article "Wiki" itself. You are probably looking for one of the following pages: How to create a page - How to create a new Wikipedia article page Help desk - For questions about Wikipedia and editing. Reference desk - For questions on factual topics (for example: Who is the pope?) Please reread Wikipedia:Questions for more details.

the comparison picture

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) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Harlequence (talk • contribs)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Wiki/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Just a few things that need to be fixed before this is a GA:

• Fewer lists
  • Could you specify which lists strike you as problematic? Vicenarian ^{(T · C)} 20:28, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
    • Looks OK to me now. -- Beland (talk) 17:10, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
• Fewer one-sentence paragraphs
  • Again, which in particular strike you as problematic? Vicenarian ^{(T · C)} 20:28, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
• History doesn't mention Wikipedia. Maybe I am vain but I think this is important?
  • History of wikis is the main article and includes detail about the history of Wikipedia. Wikipedia is also mentioned (and wikilinked) in the lead and "Communities" section of this article. Vicenarian ^{(T · C)} 20:28, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
    • I agree; Wikipedia is probably the most important thing that has ever happened to wikis, other than their invention. I added a quick mention to that paragraph. -- Beland (talk) 15:50, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Shii (tock) 16:38, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Please see my responses above. Thank you for your time! Vicenarian ^{(T · C)} 20:28, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

The "Characteristics" list could be written in non-list form. Ditto with "research communities". All one-sentence paragraphs are frowned upon unless necessary. Shii (tock) 03:46, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to close this since there have been no further responses. Shii (tock) 23:28, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

• Alignment of the rows within the table, giving examples of MediaWiki syntax vs Equivalent HTML and it's Rendered output would give greater clarity — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.106.149.130 (talk) 07:31, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

HEEHOI CHIBADOA! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.215.206.155 (talk) 01:13, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Semi-protection?

Rohit Kumar wants the Jewish community to provide protection for him. He wants to join the Reform and Conservative Synagogues in Atlanta, GA. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.122.99.157 (talk) 14:33, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

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)neil

In Reference [4] of the entry for "Wiki," it is noted that "wiki" is Hawaiian for "fast." More to the point, "wiki" is Hawaiian for "quick." Actually, "wiki" is a borrowed word in Hawaiian. It is a Hawaiianized pronunciation of the English work "quick." Doubling a word in Hawaiian intensifies it; therefore, "nui" is "big," and "nuinui" is "huge," and "wiki" is "quick," and "wikiwiki" is "Quick! Quick!" or "very quickly!" Hleatherse (talk) 15:53, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

---

Comment in response to above... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.217.67.196 (talk) 10:54, 21 August 2010 (UTC) I would be surprised if Wiki is a corruption of the English "quick", and not of the French "vite" (quick, fast, quickly). I say this simply because the article says the Hawaiian pronunciation is "wite" or "vite". I wouldn't know, but it is possible the native Hawaiians don't pronounce Vs well, and so an original "vite" (possibly borrowed from French missionaries?) came out "wite". How it got to be wiki, I can't even speculate. Unless, of course, K is pronounced T in Hawaii. Anyway, is this then Wittypedia?

Move

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Result was not moved. I don't think it's a stretch to say this hasn't a SNOWBALL's chance. --Cybercobra (talk) 22:55, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

---

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)

Wiki has entered the English language by now.—greenrd (talk) 14:35, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Oppose. This is the common name for the topic. And, I hasten to point out, it is mentioned in the dictionary: [1]. Powers ^T 17:37, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

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

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

spirts are a load of crap —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.178.193.77 (talk) 17:08, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Definition is recursive

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)

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)

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)

Wiki

Is http://www.wikidweb.com website part of the WIKI family?

Trustworthiness

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) Baseically Wikipedia is really good for finding infomation BUT .... It can be bias to a few things because people are putting in their opinions!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.47.110.117 (talk) 16:11, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

remove Lars Aronsson quote

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)

In what way is it not "e[n]cyclopedia style"? Powers ^T 15:24, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Contradictory Pronunciation Guide

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)

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)

I just go by Weird Al's pronunciation from White and Nerdy. Tisane (talk) 00:12, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Meanings

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)

That's just because Wikipedia is by a far shot the most popular wiki out there. Sorafune +1 04:51, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

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)

Most viewed

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)

I have also posted a note the Help Desk. See here. --Extra999 (Contact ^me + _contribs) 16:19, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Interesting-looking essays

• 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)

Pending changes

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).

Well, that seems to have made things worse with lots of annoying edits from unregistered users. Shritwod (talk) 14:23, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

"what I know is"

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Edit request from 193.141.220.36, 30 July 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} Please change "A wiki ( /ˈwɪki/ WIK-ee) is a website that allows ..." to "A wiki ( /ˈwɪki/ WIK-ee) is a website or a part of a website that allows ..." 193.141.220.36 (talk) 13:15, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. This is a rather major edit of a highly trafficed page, so please gather a consensus here first. I personally believe it should not be changed though. If you have any further questions/comments please reply here and place a {{talkback}} tag on my talk page. Thanks, Stickee (talk) 13:20, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually, neither of you have tried to check what consensus is. An opinion needs to be actually argued.

The reason for changing is quite simply because even the article itself refers to wikis that are not an entire website to themselves. Unless the problem is in how website is defined--I believe the usualy definition is that any page with the same domain name is considered the same website unless specifically stated otherwise (like on some webhosting providers.) — trlkly 08:58, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

buy papers online —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.177.75.67 (talk) 09:46, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

"false backronym"

 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)

Edit request from 71.109.157.19, 11 October 2010

{{edit semi-protected}} Please add

"Discussion pages" redirects here. For General information about discussion pages on Wikipedia and how they work, see Help:Using_talk_pages. For Wikipedia discussion page etiquette, see Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines.

because "discussion pages" redirects here

71.109.157.19 (talk) 17:21, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

"Discussion page(s)" has now been made a disambiguation page and no longer redirects anywhere. --Cybercobra (talk) 17:48, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Moved comment

A comment was moved to Talk:Shimen Dam

DJ-ST5

Dj ST5 Location strand south africa Age 19 Drives opel corsa 1.7 disel genre commercial club, house, funky house, club

how he got started.

Dj st5 started out on his laptop he started mixing music and just fooling around he shared his music with his friends and posted them on facebook where he was discovered. He is now famous in the helderberg basin for his awsme mixing skills and great chilled and laid back personality.

Where is he going?

alot of people think a DJ is limited thats not true or atleast not for this 1 he is on a road to go international.

what is he doing for a living?

He is currently study'ing at the univesity of stellenbosch. a Student by day DJ by night. How does he do i? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.145.132.194 (talk) 09:57, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Aboutimage, 23 November 2010

{{edit semi-protected}} 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)

 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) by sockpuppet Tisane of banned puppetmaster Sarsaparilla refers specifically to http://www.fluwikie.com/ in Note 23, but that reference is from 2006. Therefore, I have removed the part about Flu Wiki.   — Jeff G.  ツ 02:45, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

HTML equivalent is incorrect

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)

MediaWiki does use <i> tags for italics, because they have no inherent semantic meaning other than "this should be italicized". <em> should only be used for emphasis. Those who need <em> tags should use the HTML when appropriate. Reach Out to the Truth 13:10, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Wikileaks

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)