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. Untitled 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.

Miszabot malfunction?

Dear Miszabot,

The archives need refactored:

• Archive 1: 2003- 15July2011
• Archive 2: 2008 - 25Aug2012
• Archive 3: 2006 - 2Feb2013
• Archive 4: 2007 - 7Marcch2008

The entire talk page was harvested. Minthreads left was = 4.

I've restored the last several discussions of Archive 3. — CpiralCpiral 17:51, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Miszabot itself isn't at fault here - the talk page had just been whittled down to a few undated, inappropriate comments (since Miszabot doesn't know how to handle undated comments), and I cleaned them out yesterday. Bringing a few proper threads back to show people what a talk page should look like was a good call, though, I should have thought of it.

hiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii - the user who added it took the existing Archives 1-3 and put them all into Archive 1, telling Miszabot to start there, but someone restored the Archive 3 deletion (which is now duplicated in Archive 1), and the pre-existing Archive 4 was never touched! I've bumped Miszabot forward to carry on from 4, and will take a look at tidying the archives when I've got more time. --McGeddon (talk) 18:10, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you McGeddon. You're a programmer and a scholar. I assume you'll be somewhat automating the task. — CpiralCpiral 03:13, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure messy archives merit the effort of automating anything (I can't see any obvious quick solutions), but I've deleted the repeated content. --McGeddon (talk) 12:07, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Reader feedback - length, quality, pic

Many feedback items I just marked as "No action needed" requested more pictures, without any specific suggestions. If anyone has any specific ideas, please either add them to the article or leave a note here. I tagged this page as having a picture request. Something helping people to visualize the parts of the system (code, database, web server, web browser, etc.) might be what some people are looking for.

Other feedback items either requested that the article be generically longer, more detailed, simpler, less boring, and easier to understand. Some folks thought that it is awesome as is. Yay. -- Beland (talk) 17:55, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Wiki/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Ritchie333 (talk · contribs) 10:32, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

I'll give this a go.

• As initial remark, I want to make sure all the reverts are just minor or undoing vandalism, and the article is long-term stable.

• Toolserver link check returns two dead links at the end.

Characteristics

• This section has several unreferenced paragraphs. While it might be obvious to us what the characteristics of a Wiki are (we've got as far as understanding the GA criteria, after all), articles should be written to the layman to help their understanding of the subject, and hence need to be factually correct and verifiable.

• Are the three bullet points from The Wiki Way a direct quotation or a summary of it? Either way, we need a reference, ideally down to the page number in the book.

• The quotation from biomedicalcentral.com appears to take up the entire paragraph, and might be a borderline copyright infringement. It would be better to simply rewrite what the source says in our own words.

Editing wiki pages

• "The style and syntax of wikitexts can vary greatly among wiki implementations" - this probably wants some actual examples of what the differences are.

• As you're probably aware, the MediaWiki visual editor is now out of alpha grade and available generally here.

• Might also be worth mentioning that some wikis provide hooks to allow custom user interface code to be written (I've personally done this)

Navigation

• This section is unreferenced

Linking and creating pages

• This section is unreferenced

Searching

• Half of this section is unreferenced

History

• This section has a when? tag on it and the paragraph containing it is unreferenced.
• The last sentence is in a single paragraph. In general, we prefer to merge these

Implementations

• This section is completely unreferenced.

Trust and security : Trustworthiness

• This Nature reference (cited in the middle pargraph immediately following the quotation) returns 401 : "Subscription based". Probably not an issue.

Trust and security : Security

• What does "virtual vandalism" mean?
• soft-security is cited to UseModWiki. The rest of the first paragraph is cited to Assothink Wiki. Wikis are generally unreliable sources.

• Most of the second paragraph is unreferenced. You might want to consider examples from the German Wikipedia.

• Citizendium "creating an almost "vandalism-free" ambiance." Are you sure? This definitely needs a citation!

Communities : Applications

• The Alexa traffic reference is five years old and should be updated
• This Brighthub reference (cited in second paragraph) returns 416 "Download error".
• None of the three references citing "Wikis can be used for project management" look particularly reliable.

Communities : WikiNodes

• I'm not sure the only source in this section, a now dead link (archived by the Wayback Machine) to wikinodes.wiki.taoriver.net is a reliable source.

Conferences

• The references that verify the conferences certainly verify their existence, but I'm not sure they're all notable enough to be mentioned. Really each one wants a third party source. For instance, This news source involving Wikimania is third party.

Rules

• I think in order to be broad in coverage, this section should give one or two other examples aside from Wikipedia and Conservapedia, such as Citizendium or RationalWiki

Legal environment

• The second paragraph is unreferenced

More later. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:32, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Okay, I've done a sweep through the article, and as it currently stands there are major problems with sections being unsourced or questionably sourced. In my view, it will take a significant amount of work to fix this so the article meets GA Criteria 2b ("inline citations"), 2c ("no original research") and 3a ("broad in coverage"). As I don't like suddenly turning up and quickfailing GA candidates, I'll wait and see what your response to the issues raised is first. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:15, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Sorry to go off-topic, but (nice as it might seem to some) what's with all the coloured text? 78.147.86.1 (talk) 21:28, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Comments

Excellent feedback! I tagged a bunch of problems and cleaned up the minor ones:

• Fixed the actually-dead links.
• Updated Visual Editor status
• Tagged {{example needed}} for wiki synatx variety
• Merged 1-sentence paragraph
• Implementations: This is mostly summarizing linked internal articles; normally I would defer references to them. Care to tag anything in particular you feel could benefit from a direct citation?
• Tagged Nature reference {{Subscription required}}
• Defined "vandalism" (removed "virtual")
• Tagged unreliable sources
• Tagged out of date Alexa reference
• The WikiNodes source is somewhat primary, but it's some of the only evidence I could find for this usage. I would tag it as unreliable, but I'm not sure there's a better source out there.
• Tagged all the "citation needed" spots

Other than what's now tagged on the page and whatever you think in Implementations that needs a citation, I would take your suggestions as additional todo items:

• Editing wiki pages: "Might also be worth mentioning that some wikis provide hooks to allow custom user interface code to be written (I've personally done this)"
• Trust and security/Security: "You might want to consider examples from the German Wikipedia."
• Conferences: "The references that verify the conferences certainly verify their existence, but I'm not sure they're all notable enough to be mentioned. Really each one wants a third party source. For instance, This news source involving Wikimania is third party."
• Rules: "I think in order to be broad in coverage, this section should give one or two other examples aside from Wikipedia and Conservapedia, such as Citizendium or RationalWiki"

I'm certainly not going to have time to fix the problems identified, but I'm glad we now have a new todo list to move toward good article status. Since this article was previously nominated and most of the previously identified problems were fixed, I thought it was time for another look. Thanks for taking the time! -- Beland (talk) 16:18, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Oh, and the BMC quote points to an article that says "This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0)". But I agree, that was an excessively long quote, so I cut it down for brevity. -- Beland (talk) 16:26, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. I'll mark the review as "failed", but as ever, all that means is an article isn't in shape to pass the GA criteria yet. And, as you say, the review can be kept and referred back to as a todo list, and you've already made the article better than its pre-review state. So it's really a net positive. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:14, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Criticisms?

Is this article really neutral? I, for one, am sure that to sentences like:

Maged N. Kamel Boulos, Cito Maramba and Steve Wheeler write that the open wikis produce a process of Social Darwinism. "'Unfit' sentences and sections are ruthlessly culled, edited and replaced if they are not considered 'fit', which hopefully results in the evolution of a higher quality and more relevant page. Whilst such openness may invite 'vandalism' and the posting of untrue information, this same openness also makes it possible to rapidly correct or restore a 'quality' wiki page."

, there were people who would reply that what the majority considers most fit may instead be not optimal. - 89.110.10.48 (talk) 00:30, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

new policy to reduce confusion over 'talk'

is this a suitable place for discussion of wiki policy?

"article talk" pages and "user talk" pages can be confusing to the newbie, especially when the same notation "talk" is used in wiki scripts for the two very different link routes (user talk vs article talk).

to alleviate this problem, it might be useful to default "talk" to the article, and to add a category of "utalk" for "user talk".

so that

• (cur | prev) 03:32, 2 June 2013‎ EdwinAmi (talk | contribs)‎ . . (14,148 bytes) (+73)‎ . . (undo)

would become

• (cur | prev) 03:32, 2 June 2013‎ EdwinAmi (utalk | contribs)‎ . . (14,148 bytes) (+73)‎ . . (undo)

while the reference to

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wiki

would remain "talk".

in this way, "utalk" would become very distinguishable from (article) "talk".— Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.185.212.81 (talk) 12:35, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Trademark of word 'wiki' in Chinese language

This issues was raised on this talk page back in 2008 by user:Jpatokal, at Talk:Wiki/Archive 2#Trademark for Chinese word for "Wiki", but it was more of a question following up from meta:Talk:Wikimedia trademarks#Wikimedia Foundation trademarking 維基, the Chinese word for "wiki"?.

zh:維基 and zh-yue:維基 are both separate articles about the trademarked term, with zh:Wiki and zh-yue:Wiki being about the concept. The Chinese language articles about the trademark use http://tech.sina.com.cn/i/2009-09-15/13523439436.shtml (google translate) as a reference. While I do believe this should be covered in English Wikipedia, I'm not sure that this warrants a separate article, as I havent found a great deal of information about this trademark, but my Chinese language search skills leave a lot to be desired. Perhaps others can help find more sources. If it doesnt go in a separate article, does it go into this article? John Vandenberg ^(chat) 11:32, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

The zh.wp article has had two AFDs; a proper discussion in 2010 at zh:Wikipedia:頁面存廢討論/記錄/2010/10/10#維基 and a quick one in 2012 at zh:Wikipedia:頁面存廢討論/記錄/2012/09/14#維基. There is also an English Wiktionary entry wikt:维基 and two Chinese Wiktionary entries wikt:zh:维基 and wikt:zh:維基 (traditional). John Vandenberg ^(chat) 12:46, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Funny thing is, apart from being Hawaiian for "Quick", the word "Wiki" does not appear to mean anything. It seems to be a totally meaningless/made up word. Look, the king is in the altogether! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.44.233.163 (talk) 21:23, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Apart from it having become over-used, and totally boring, what grounds are there for using "wiki" as a word? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.20.229.102 (talk) 12:01, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

History Of Hatra,Badaun (Uttar Pradesh) India

Here i aware all the person to the history of the Hatra.Hatra ar a village in Badaun district (UP) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.21.240.2 (talk) 08:45, 20 November 2013 (UTC)