Talk:Wiki/Archive 2

Potential changes

We should include a link to comparison of wiki software on this page. I had to resort to google to find it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_wiki_software Gm4n (talk) 21:19, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

It might also help when name dropping MediaWiki to make it a link to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.110.1.7 (talk) 19:43, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Vici

Vici is Latin for "I conquered", and is pronounced /wi:ki:/ in Classical Latin. --nlitement ^[talk] 16:22, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

So? Regards, HaeB (talk) 11:19, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Depends on what country you learned Latin in. How it IS pronounced and how it WAS pronounced are two separate matters, and there is still much debate on the latter.

Meaning of wiki-wiki?

In most Malayo-Polynesian languages reduplication is used to signify plural (for nouns), or continuous (for verbs). Does anyone know the exact implication in Hawaiian? It would be nice to add that to the page. lk (talk) 13:38, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

--Krowand (talk) 20:12, 18 September 2008 (UTC) When I went to Hawaii and visited their cultural center and our docent began talking about the impact that Christian Missionaries had had on Hawaiian culture, the two examples she used explaining the Island variation on the incoming Church's influences were first an example of the alteration of the Church hymns, this part was sung by a choir in the before and after, and second the alteration of the English language word, quickly, into the Hawaiian equivalent word, Wiki. It seems that Island time and Jolly Old time moved at totally different speeds and the Pastor's wifes were always imploring the natives to move faster. I can't be of any real help with the doubling as part of the Malayo-Polynesian language structure but the knowledgeable-seeming docent giving the speech to my group repeated the word for emphasis as, "Quickly, quickly!" (Kwik-lee, Kwik-lee)

--Krowand (talk) 20:12, 18 September 2008 (UTC) I guess that would make WIKI a part of Hawaiʻi Creole English, HCE, or simply Pidgin, the Hawai-ian creole language based in part on English. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.22.60.72 (talk) 18:55, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

unit of stored knowledge

Can wiki be a standard unit of digitally stored "knowledge" (in conventional sense)? (like a Meme) Sohale (talk) 02:17, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

What is a wiki principle? Does it deserve another separate article? (see links section of article Wiki ) Sohale (talk) 02:25, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

You're kidding

The article contains this paragraph:

""Wiki" (/wiːkiː/) is originally a Hawaiian word for "fast". It has been suggested that "wiki" means "What I Know Is".[4] However, this is a backronym. "Wiki Wiki" is a reduplication of the same word."

I just have to mention that it seems a glaring omission to tell us about this reduplication, but not to mention that "Wiki Wiki Wiki Wiki" is a reduplication of "Wiki Wiki", and "Wiki Wiki Wiki Wiki Wiki Wiki Wiki Wiki" is a reduplication of that, and "Wiki Wiki Wiki Wiki Wiki Wiki Wiki Wiki Wiki Wiki Wiki Wiki Wiki Wiki Wiki Wiki" is a reduplication of that (and by now you just might see the pattern if you're really smart).

Otherwise, how will readers ever figure these things out???

Oh, and by the way -- seriously -- if "Wiki Wiki" is going to be mentioned, shouldn't the article explain why it is mentioned at all? I.e., that it is a word in Hawaiian? And, like, uh, maybe, what it means?Daqu (talk) 22:49, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

--Krowand (talk) 20:12, 18 September 2008 (UTC)```` Wiki is the Hawaiian alteration of the English Language word "quickly" when pronounced by local Hawaiians who were usually helping out in the newly-arrived Christian kitchens. The Minister's wives tried to speed up the locals by repeating the word loudly as in, "Quickly, Quickly!" This works on the same principle as tourists talking English to non-English-speakers locals, slowly and loudly so that they can better understand you. Yes, I am kidding but this is also true. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.22.60.72 (talk) 18:38, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

OK, fine, but it is also true that "Platypus, platypus" is a reduplication of "platypus". That's not a good enough reason to mention this under the entry Platypus.

My point is that if a mention of "Wiki, wiki" has any place in the article, it needs to be accompanied by more of an explanation than that it is a reduplication of "wiki", since that is true merely by the definition of the word "reduplication".Daqu (talk) 12:58, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Changing Wiki Definition? (wikitext)

Many sites billed as wikis no longer use simplified markup language. Are they no longer wikis or has the difinition of wiki changed? Among those that don't use simplified markup language are PBWiki and Wetpaint. 70.165.110.211 (talk) 22:27, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Do they do this by using a WHYIWYG editor the generates html directly? Does this impose limits on available features or is there a way to insert html code directly? Are there good reasons to continue using wikitext? BTW I think it would be very handy to have a table(s) comparing the wikitext used by various wikis or at least which are mediawiki compatible. Fholson 14:01, 25 October 2008 (UTC) this website sucks it has crap that other people say.

Bill Atkinson

In "History" section instead of...

Cunningham was in part inspired by Apple's HyperCard. Apple had designed a system allowing users to create virtual "card stacks" supporting links among the various cards.

we can write:

Cunningham was in part inspired by Apple's HyperCard. Bill Atkinson had designed for Apple a system allowing users to create virtual "card stacks" supporting links among the various cards.

--Dvdgmz (talk) 08:22, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Trademark for Chinese word for "Wiki"

The Chinese Wikipedia page claims that 維基 weiji, the Chinese rendering of "Wiki" used in Wikipedia (維基百科) etc, is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation and may not be used by any other site. Indeed, such a trademark registration in the WMF's name can be found on the Taiwan Intellectual Property Office database. Is this worth noting, and does the WMF presume to trademark the word in any other language or script? The English form is certainly genericized already. Jpatokal (talk) 03:42, 28 November 2008 (UTC) Insert non-formatted text here

Re: Editing wiki pages

The third paragraph's first sentence seems confusing:

Although limiting access to HTML and Cascading Style Sheets (CSS) of wikis limits user ability to alter the structure and formatting of wiki content, there are some benefits.

It sounds as if wiki editing is limited to HTML/CSS or that the latter are prohibited. I'd like to suggest the following:

Although by limiting usage of HTML and Cascading Style Sheets (CSS) in wikis, user ability to alter the structure and formatting of wiki content is limited, there are some benefits.

Henrymiddle (talk) 19:17, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Wiki means "fast"?

In the last sentence of the introduction section, should "fast" be replaced with "quick"? "Fast" can also mean starving oneself, so "quick" may be a clearer choice. The webpage that the definition references also mentions "quick," so the reference wouldn't have to change. -Media Socialist (talk) 19:57, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

bög bög —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.214.82.94 (talk) 07:27, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

New version

I you have any issues with the current version, please indicate them here. -Stevertigo 01:37, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I clearly indicated several issues with your changes in this edit summary. Did you actually read it before reverting to your new version?

But to repeat them here and explain them further:

• You fundamentally changed the definition, deleting the old, sourced definition of wiki as a medium in favor of your unsourced wiki definition as a kind of software. Please read Talk:Wiki/Archive_1#Definition.
• The material you added does not have a single reference and seems to consists largely of original research and personal observations. To pick just one example:

[Wikipedia's] success is largely due to its open access and open source philosophy. Wikis used for other knowledge management purposes may have a very different philosophy, and technical implementations may differ accordingly —ranging from limited-access websites to corporate intranet and VPN systems to highly secretive systems using secretive protocols (see Intellipedia).

You are making several sweeping claims here without backing them up. What exactly are the "secretive protocols" used by Intellipedia? (According to the article, it is using Mediawiki too, just on closed networks.) Many people have tried to explain the success of Wikipedia, with different conclusions; "largely due to its open access and open source philosophy" is 1) very vague and 2) a specific point of view (most people would cite the fact that Wikipedia is freely editable as another, more important factor for WP's success). You seem to be confused about the difference between open access and free content. And "open source philosophy" is a very vague term, and the collaborative process of most open source software projects has important differences to that of Wikipedia. (For example, most open source projects have a sense of ownership - cf. Linux maintainers, something which is strictly discouraged on Wikipedia.) And why shouldn't this "open access and open source philosophy" (whatever its precise meaning is) be relevant to Intellipedia? The same mechanisms which are at work in the community of all Internet users could also occur in closed, non-public communities.

But it is not our job to conduct such debates here - that is the point of WP:OR. I only discussed this example to convince you that my revert was not just done for policy reasons, even though those would have been sufficient to legitimize it.

I see that you too are a wikipedian of many years experience. It is only natural that, having contributed to a wiki for a long time and witnessed its success, one has collected a lot of personal thought and observations about this matter. But please note that this encyclopedia article is the wrong place to publish it. (I am not saying that all of your additions fall into this category, for example I agree that the interpretation of Wiki software as a content management system should be mentioned, albeit with a reference.)

I ask you not to revert to your version again without having addressed these issues and providing references for the new material. See WP:BURDEN.

Regards, HaeB (talk) 06:32, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

You said: "I clearly indicated several issues with your changes in [this edit summary]. Did you actually read it before reverting to your new version?" Your edit summary was: "partial revert - fundamental change of definition without a single reference (please read Talk:Wiki/Archive_1#Definition), lots of original research and personal opinions"

You substantiated none of your claims or characterizations, except for the concept that there be sources cited. Certainly there will be, and I was in fact in the process of dealing with that when you reverted. I just read that archive and found it utterly irrelevant. The thread thereafter dealt with the issue more directly. If you actually read my version, you would not find it so objectionable. You could even make yourself useful by finding sources to back up my writing. These are your points, dissected to deal with them individually, and collapsed for ease of use.

section

HaeB's points / SV's responses

The material you added does not have a single reference seems to consists largely of original research and personal observations. Some of these points are redundant and repetitive with points made below -SV To pick just one example "..success is largely due to its open access and open source philosophy." "..Wikis used for other knowledge management purposes may have operate under a very different philosophy.." technical implementations may differ accordingly ranging from limited-access websites to corporate intranet and VPN systems to highly secretive systems using secretive protocols (see Intellipedia)" several sweeping claims here without backing them up What exactly are the "secretive protocols" used by Intellipedia? (According to the article, it is using Mediawiki too, just on closed networks.) AIUI these are not just "closed networks," but closed, encrypted networks, and the encryption, presumably based on AES, is a government-only implementation. AIUI. I used the reference to indicate a scale of usages from extremely public to extremely not. -SV Many people have tried to explain the success of Wikipedia, with different conclusions Yeah, and as someone who remembers when recent changes was usable as everybody's personal watchlist, when images had to be resized manually, when CamelCase was just on its way out, when subpages were still used for "categorical organization," when certain people were still trying to say that Nupedia was not actually a dead concept, and when using a database for a backend was an advanced concept, I can at least propose some of the basic concepts that belong in a lede section. If Wikipedia should be mentioned at all, it should deal with its impressive *growth. "Success" is the only problematic concept in that expression, and one which you repeat with your own question. "largely due to its open access and open source philosophy" is 1) very vague No it is not: See WP:JWP. Note I'm using open source to mean open-content or public domain information. I can agree with your terminology. -SV and 2) a specific point of view (most people would cite the fact that Wikipedia is freely editable as another, more important factor for WP's success). By "freely editable" you must mean something like "open access to open source content". Im certain we can work on the language, if you think my choice of terms is not clear. We appear to agree on the concepts, AISI. -SV You seem to be confused about the difference between open access and free content. We can use those terms instead if you like. I would agree that they are more accurate. But I am not confused about them, or the fact that WP's "success" required both. -SV "open source philosophy" is a very vague term, Another good point. You of course could try better; the concept is philosophy ~ openness ~ content, and I dont think that's controversial. -SV and the collaborative process of most open source software projects has important differences to that of Wikipedia. OK. I yield on the point that open source is not the right term. I would like to reference it, though, as much of what we do here is based on open source programming, and coincidentally similar to that concept of openness. -SV (For example, most open source projects have a sense of ownership - cf. Linux maintainers, Certainly its a difference, but how much so? If you rewrote the article just moments before I boldly reverted it, you might feel a little OWN too. something which is strictly discouraged on Wikipedia.) And yet people still are still "contributors" though, aren't they? And why shouldn't this "open access and open source philosophy" (whatever its precise meaning is) be relevant to Intellipedia? Open source content with no "open" access is a different concept IMHO, relatively speaking. Intelligence (active) is not the same thing as facts. And yet the wiki platform still qualifies. The real question is, is it still really a "wiki" though, if its run by teenage administrator deletionists, and IP's cant make or move pages.. etc. -SV discussed this example to convince you that my revert was not just done for policy reasons, even though those would have been sufficient to legitimize it. As uncharacteristic as it is for me to cite these, certainly BOLD, IAR, CIVIL, and NINJA come to mind. -SV I see that you too are a wikipedian of many years experience. It is only natural that.. one has collected a lot of personal thought and observations about this matter. Its not even a "matter"; its a piece of software (!). A technological concept that not too long from now will be so ubiquitous that it isn't even a concept anymore, because there won't be much of anything else to it compare to. (Maybe you remember the "all websites will be wiki" discussions from years ago.) -SV But please note that this encyclopedia article is the wrong place to publish it. I deal with this all the time: I replace boring inaccurate and maybe even substandard ledes with better written ones; that 1) reference and link to the important basic concepts, that concisely give the essential concepts in more or less the right order, and 3) require some extra eyes to critique. (I am not saying that all of your additions fall into this category, you would violate DBAD if you did. for example I agree that the interpretation of Wiki software as a content management system should be mentioned, albeit with a reference I hadn't realized that this was sufficiently different from the software to mention. Strange; I'll take a look. WP:BURDEN. Ehgk: "The sky is blue"[citation needed]. -Stevertigo 07:24, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

PS: For clarity and editing, I'm transcluding my version below. Though that might be deleted too, just while Im in the middle of dealing with it. -Stevertigo 07:24, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

• You substantiated none of your claims or characterizations, except for the concept that there be sources cited. Certainly there will be, and I was in fact in the process of dealing with that when you reverted - OK, that's good news. Can we agree that with further changes and expansions of the article, both content and references should be added at the same time? That should hopefully at the same time eliminate the need for most discussion about original research. I also think I did substantiate the characterization as OR in the above example, but if you insist, I will address some other examples in the text that you provided below.
• I just read that archive and found it utterly irrelevant. - Thanks for expressing your opinion. Now, could you support it by some actual facts and arguments? Why do you regard those definitions by the Oxford English Dictionary and Britannica (and the quotes by Ward Cunningham) irrelevant? Or did you mean that the distinction between medium and software in the definition is irrelevant? I disagree, and I already quoted the distinction between database and database management system as a related example.
• AIUI these are not just "closed networks," but closed, encrypted networks - Well, I am often using reasonably strong encrypted network connections (possibly involving AES, too) to edit Wikipedia, does that make it (or my edits) less "open source"? ;) Seriously: I think the closedness of the network (and especially its protection against intrusion) is not the most important point if one is thinking about the growth or success of a wiki. Intellipedia has probably a larger readership and more active editors than many public wikis on the Internet. A more relevant point might be that it probably has a real names policy (actually, some internal company wikis, such as that of Fraport, allow anonymous editing!) and that it is directly related to the work and career of it contributors (at last year's Wikimania, in a talk about Diplopedia the presenter made the point that libelous vandalism was of course not a problem because it would mean "career suicide"). But I am getting off on an OR tangent.
• as someone who remembers when [....] I can at least propose some of the basic concepts that belong in a lede section - well, these are certainly noteworthy recollections and anecdotes which I enjoyed reading, but "I was a punk before you were a punk" doesn't get one very far. You joined Wikipedia in 2002, I started editing it in 2003, but perhaps tomorrow some new user will come, equipped with excellent references, and rewrite the article in a brillant fashion which puts both of us to shame - who knows? ;)
• "largely due to its open access and open source philosophy" is 1) very vague // No it is not: See WP:JWP. - which mentions neither "open access" nor "open source" nor "philosophy"... Maybe you wanted to say that this very vague expression can be replaced by more specific description such as on that page.
• By "freely editable" you must mean something like "open access to open source content". - no I did not, at least not in the common meaning of the terms open access (which refers to "read only" access) and open source. One reason why I would much prefer it if we could respect Wikipedia:Verifiability and work from published sources is that I still have some trouble figuring out what you meant by terms like "open source". I have a hunch that you might mean something like the "bazaar" model of collaboration in open source software projects (which, as the linked article explains, have also used the contrarian "cathedral" model), but I can't be sure.
• As uncharacteristic as it is for me to cite these, certainly BOLD, IAR, CIVIL, and NINJA come to mind. - You can cite WP:BOLD with respect to your first edit (which was rather boldly deleting a well-referenced definition with a unsourced one and lots of unsourced content) - fine. But WP:BOLD is based on the fact that all edits can be reverted, and if such a revert occurs then it is quite weird to complain that the other editor is "boldy undoing what others have done before".
• WP:BURDEN. Ehgk: "The sky is blue"[citation needed]. I don't know what "Ehgk" means. I think almost all of the facts in this article are not universally known among the general public (which we write this little encyclopedia for.) You might also want to read this. It's 2009 and by now there is a host of good literature about wikis out there. We really have no excuse to ignore it.

Regards, HaeB (talk) 08:17, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Add Link to Social Media Category

Just a suggestion, but you should add a Category:Social Media link to the bottom of the page. I definitely think wikis are social media.--Bill.albing (talk) 19:39, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikidot

I had my edit 'reverted' by someone who said - without evidence- that it was advertising. Of course it is not. I have nothing to do with wikidot, which is mentioned as it is an important exampel of what I am describing. Suggest other exampels, don't delete without evidence or justification.

Gemtpm (talk) 14:19, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Useability: Cursor placement gobbling 20 years of time per day.

The page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wiki should open with the cursor active in the Search Query text box ready to recieve keystrokes.

This improvement will save about 1 second per search.

If the average user hits Wiki 5 times per day that is a savings of 30 hours of time per user per year.

This improvement would save users approximately 177,000 hours per day for this website alone, according to rough website tracking of Wikipedia.

Currently the website consumes 20 years of total human time per day prior to the improvement.

Feel free to criticize this in any analytical light but this design inefficiency is temporaly obese no matter how many searches you eliminate per page hit.

Tabbing to the box has not produced an adequate solution.

Thanks and I apologize if this is not in the right section.

I leave it to the page administrators to use their time to move this to the appropriate section and decide if their visitors time is worth the effort.

Excellent page, excellent community. I have confidence that despite my inability to sound natural and polite, this change will be taken seriously and be made with haste.

151.151.73.165 (talk) 17:35, 30 April 2009 (UTC)faithful wikifiliate

Wikipedia is a Wiki? (NO!)

It says in the very first paragraph that Wikipedia is a Wiki. WHAT?! NO! WIKITUBIA is a WIKI. WIKIPEDIA is a WIKIMEDIA PROJECT! Or, is it? NuttyGorillaWiki (talk) 23:48, 17 March 2008 (UTC)Fag

eh? wiki is knowledge managements best friend? --Fredrick day 23:50, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

eh? wiki refers to software in that first paragraph not ownership? --Fredrick day 23:50, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

A wiki is a type of website that allows visitors to edit the content. It has nothing to do with ownership. Oh, and by the way, I think your link is broken. And easy on the caps, man. You were screaming almost your entire statement. --71.125.5.51 (talk) 12:20, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

It is an user interface . —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.242.16.5 (talk) 10:41, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

In a way, you have a point. It's pretty obvious that Wikipedia is a wiki (hence the title), but there's no need to make a complete list from the start. If they do make a list, they should probably make another article. I mean, there are countless wikis on the web.

--Pyramid Productions (talk) 21:51, 4 November 2008 (UTC)Pyramid Productions

what's wiki's mechanism?

can anyone add this part? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.135.255.83 (talk) 10:50, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Definition of Wiki is self-referential

So from the article's statement that

  "Wiki" (English pronunciation: /wiːkiː/) is a Hawaiian word for "fast"

I guess people can infer that "Wikipedia" refers to abstaining from knowledge, sort of the way "fast" means abstaining from food. Or at least in this article it does. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.231.240.111 (talk) 11:59, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

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

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.

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?

this is a very serious topicreunited all of Europe through Christianity and how much his empire thrived under him.

Charles the Great was born in the year 747 on April the Second in Herstal Wallonia. He was the child of Pepin the Short, Betrada of Laon and older than his brother Carloman. While in his childhood, he spoke Rhenish Franconia and Old High German, as he got older learned Latin. Charles’ appearance was quite intimidating; he was about seven feet 6 feet and 7 inches tall, sturdily built, and very handsome. Charlemagne.

Charlemagne is mainly known for adding land onto his Frankish empire and reuniting all of Europe through Christianity. He ruled from the beautiful city of Cologne in Germany and his massive empire consisted of Italy, Spain, Germany, France, and — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.102.94.141 (talk) 04:29, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

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)

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)

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: 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)

"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)

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)

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

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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).

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)

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)

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

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)

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

Future of the Wiki technology

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

• http://www.xwiki.com/xwiki/bin/view/Product/WhyXWiki
• http://platform.xwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Main/SecondGenerationWiki

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

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)

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)

 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)

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)

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)

Edit request from , 12 November 2011

wiki is a collection of web pages

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

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. --Jnorton7558 (talk) 13:45, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

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)

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. --Jnorton7558 (talk) 13:45, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

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)

Edit request on 29 November 2011

Collapsed under Talk Page Guidelines. Talk page vandalism & Silly vandalism

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

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

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)

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)

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)

Edit request on 29 January 2012

Wiki is the anglicization of the Hawaiian wikiwiki. 75.84.200.25 (talk) 19:54, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Wikipedia is not a reliable source. Thanks, Celestra (talk) 03:27, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. I'll look it up and provide a good reference for you. 75.84.200.25 (talk) 22:42, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

An interesting thought; I'll ask my Polynesian friends. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 11:53, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Communities section

Other large wikis include the WikiWikiWeb, Memory Alpha, Wikitravel, World66 and Susning.nu, a Swedish-language knowledge base.

Susning.nu shut down in 2009, WikiWikiWeb and World66 are not even linked. These three are no longer (or never have been) "large" and IMO should be removed. There are a number of successful wikis that would qualify for mention as examples here, based upon number of articles and contributors. Plutonium27 (talk) 16:30, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Wiki Finance

Is there a page related to wikipedia's finances? Because this is something important, and there seems to be no mention of this anywhere on this page. If one exists, a link-back would be nice.

¬¬¬¬ Anon. 18/03/2012

This article is about wikis in general, of which Wikipedia is only one example. Therefore this is not quite the right place for the question. Nevertheless, let me point you to the annual reports, monthly reports and financial reports of the Wikimedia Foundation, the nonprofit which operates Wikipedia. Regards, HaeB (talk) 13:39, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Pronunciation

The first sentence says ˈwɪkiː/ WIK-ee, and later it says the Hawaiian word is "(pronounced [ˈwiti] or [ˈviti])". So technically this should be said that way. Enigma^msg 16:24, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Please close the parentheses at the end of the second paragraph.

Pse close the parentheses. It's needed at the end of the paragraph that starts with the word "Ward".

I know this is minor but I don't see a way to edit the first part. Many thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theresavalek (talk • contribs) 03:50, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

The parantheses are closed: (pronounced [ˈwiti] or [ˈviti]) --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:55, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

No link to the original wiki

At the bottom of the page in either references or "further reading" there should be a link to the C2 wiki page. That way people can see another take on "wiki" if they're interested in exploring it's less rigid more free form and "stream of consciousness" style of presenting information. Also it should be there to at least acknowledge what the page itself purports as the original. It has Ward Cunninghams picture but a not a link to the wiki on the C2 website. Seriously. There is a brief mention of C2.com in the first paragraph and that's it. It's not some academic example in a museum somewhere, it's still an active populated wiki on the web.

- maybe they don't want the extra traffic though? I dunno.

H — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.235.73.241 (talk) 13:26, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

"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)

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)

Both words have many different context dependent meanings, but 'quick' often refers to duration, in contrast with 'fast' refering to the speed of progress or velocity. Both can reasonably be applied to this web model in that each entry can be completed quickly, and the progress of huge collections of entries which are accumulating very rapidly.
It is surprisingly coincidental that the prefix "wiki" in several other aboriginal american languages refers to community effort. A wikiup (wikiyup) is a common use building, communally built by nomadic groups, which acted as a common home until individual families could build their private lodges.
Wikidity (talk) 22:55, 25 August 2012 (UTC)