Jump to content

Talk:Wiki

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 91.231.91.55 (talk) at 09:22, 9 January 2012. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

jono is a gay faggggggg| colspan="3" style="font-size: 150%; text-align: left; height: 4em" | 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:

Please reread Wikipedia:Questions for more details.

Former good articleWiki was one of the good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
On this day...Article Collaboration and Improvement Drive Article milestones
DateProcessResult
June 16, 2004Featured article candidateNot promoted
March 28, 2006Good article nomineeListed
June 15, 2006Good article reassessmentDelisted
August 13, 2009Good article nomineeNot listed
On this day... A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on March 25, 2005.
Article Collaboration and Improvement Drive This article was on the Article Collaboration and Improvement Drive for the week of May 9, 2024.
Current status: Delisted good article

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)

What does Mexico have to do with it? --12.31.160.200 (talk) 13:29, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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:

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


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

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)[reply]

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

I have no idea were to just post a general comment. Wikipdea is a great resource. If I were you I would look for retired librarians in their 70's or 80's or even 90's for that matter who love knowledge and know how a library is organized and have them organize your web pages for navigation and content. Also try using a Harbarce Handbook in outlining your pages and there content.

In todays news you stated a catholic missionary was a covert spy for the french, there is a slight inference to bash Catholics again. There is no perfect religion, but I assure you the Catholic religion with its' fault is the most refined religion of all religions. It is also the only religion that does not discriminate or make you pay a tith to go to church or be a member of that church or participate in any religions holidays. It is the only church that you can walk into during 8-5 Monday through Friday and sit in solace and say a prayer or contact a priest at any given time, because his sole purpose is to serve Gods' people. I have experienced many religions from Judism to Muslim to Babtist to many other christian demoninations, mormons, luthern, many others. There our thousands of religions and demoninations to cults. Leave the Catholic religion in peace and alone and stop trying to undermine it and push another forward. If you have a problem with it, take your problem up with the doicese or vatican instead of backhanding it to the public in order to covertly discredit it and undermine it. If a priest has transgressed his boundaries, it is addressed as any other christian has or layman for that matter. Don't discredit the entire religion for one priest transgression. You don't do it to other religions and it is a fact such transgression are far more prevelant in other religious sectors. So stop trying to undermine and discredit the catholic religion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.59.193.125 (talk) 15:12, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection?

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[reply]

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)[reply]

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?[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Wiki has entered the English language by now.—greenrd (talk) 14:35, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Oppose — WP:COMMONNAME
— V = I * R (talk) 22:10, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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


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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

This is only most viewed because people search "wiki" on google to get to the website. No one actually reads it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.43.215.161 (talk) 16:36, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting-looking essays

Tisane (talk) 18:48, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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).[reply]

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

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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


Moved comment

A comment was moved to Talk:Shimen Dam

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)[reply]

 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

The WikiLeaks article already mentions that fact. Seems odd to point out a non-example here. --Cybercobra (talk) 07:35, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mention of Wikipedia

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)[reply]

No, per WP:SELFREF. Consider downstream reusers of our content; that is no longer Wikipedia. --Cybercobra (talk) 03:28, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request from 129.85.134.143, 13 January 2011

{{edit semi-protected}}

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)[reply]

 Done I'm fairly certain that the correct reading is "prevents code that limits access"—that is, keeping off javascript prevents me (User A) from adding code to a wiki that would hurt users B-F. That's the only way I can make sense of the sentence. Technically, just removing the comma is sufficient to fix the problem, but I also went ahead and changed "which" to "that", as that further reduces the ambiguity. If someone with more knowledge of the subject believes my interpretation is wrong, feel free to revert so long as you explain here. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:12, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page guidelines

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)[reply]

WikiNode

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).[reply]

Also, why does Edit summary redirect here? This article is too broad for such a minor part of the editing process to redirect here. —Senator2029 | talk 17:43, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request from Djgiesbrecht, 3 May 2011

Misspelled word: replace "implemented softare package" with "implemented software package"

Djgiesbrecht (talk) 10:30, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This has now been done, thanks. Mr. Credible (talk) 10:32, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

special agent owen coming to you with breaking news zombies killed JFK. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.83.245.97 (talk) 13:14, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I hope I am doing this right; it's my first suggestion, and I'm not familiar with your coding. Please edit the grammar of the following sentence (ironic that the article refers to "unfit sentences" right after this unfit sentence!) "Basically, because of the openness and rapidity that wiki pages can be edited, the pages undergo a natural selection process like that which nature subjects to living organisms." Please change this to "Basically, because of the openness and rapidity [with which] wiki pages can be edited, the pages undergo a natural selection process like that [to] which nature subjects living organisms." Thanks. Mrs Forgie (talk) 03:31, 15 June 2011 (UTC) Mrs Forgie, June 15, 2011[reply]

"Wiki" in Hawaiian

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Future of the Wiki technology

There are websites talking about a 2nd generation of wikis.

Need a new section about emerging trends ? Yug (talk) 23:58, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Edit request

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)[reply]

 Done Thank you for pointing this out; it was a good suggestion. I've noticed that you've been making some great additions to the Wikipedia and we really appreciate it. Why not create an account and stay awhile? The Wikipedia can use as many quality members as possible. If you ever need editing help visit Wikipedia:How does one edit a page or leave a message on my talk page. —Senator2029 | talk 18:24, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WYSIWYG or WYMIWYG?

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Edit request from , 12 November 2011

wiki is a collection of web pages

Sajal25485 (talk) 06:47, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. --Jnorton7558 (talk) 13:45, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request from , 12 November 2011

wiki is basicaly website where we can read the information and give suggetion...!!

22bharat kumar (talk) 06:53, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. --Jnorton7558 (talk) 13:45, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strange talk addition removed

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)[reply]

Edit request on 29 November 2011

71.187.52.66 (talk) 18:17, 29 November 2011 (UTC) Farting is a very good thing to do to relieve pressure in your anus[reply]

 Not done: Not a valid request. — Senator2029║talk 19:39, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Introduction is Too Complicated

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Wiki&oldid=470404186"