Talk:Wiki/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 1 Archive 2


Talk up through 2003

I often explain a wiki to people as the web equivalent of a grafitti wall. Would this analogy be worth putting here?Yahoo!

'Media:We would like to know more about wiki.Yes' Where can We find sexy info? We don't think this has been settled, so I'm not daring to modify the text, but I think Wiki the proper noun should refer to a page on the World Wide Web, while wiki the common noun refers to wikis not accessible from the Internet. That's how I explained the difference between Web and web in that article, anyway. <>< tbc

Could be, but it would be nformation to me. --LMS

Somebody rewrote the text of this article pretty radically, on the premise that "WikiWiki" straightforwardly means Ward's Wiki, which, in my idiolect anyway, it doesn't always and indeed rarely does. But I'm not surprised that some people think it does mean that or should mean that. If someone with more experience on wikis insists that "Wiki" capitalized is usually understood to mean "Ward's Wiki," that should be in the article (it already is, I guess).

More generally, I think this article needs another huge rewrite. The changes I made were made very quickly. Wiki the software, wiki the culture, the history of wiki, etc., there are many topics that need to be covered here. --LMS Χ

Moved from the "comment" section by Tim Starling:

I added a link to what seems to be the real WhyClublet. The one under the Wiki Communites is just an edittable page. Hopefully I picked the right thing to add....

Hey, "Edit this page" is a nice feature to modify the page... -Raghu Tallam

i suppose in the sense that anyone can start new pages. but the main feature of a wiki is that anything can be edited. should probably be changed to reflect that -- Tarquin

I was wondering which if any aspects of wikidom have been implemented in ways that do not require internet access, as have things like usenet, mail, and their substrate uucp.

provide much info. Jay 21:38, Sep 16, 2003 (UTC)

List of references added circa this edit is not really appropriate here, since many of them are about wikipedia in particular, as opposed to wiki in general. I would remove most of them. 17:48, 28 Sep 2003 (UTC)

That makes no sense. Wikipedia is by far the largest wiki, so it is a good (and popular) example for studying wikis.—Eloquence 18:26, 28 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I'm curious as to what the larger wikis referred to in the controlling users section are all about. As far as I know, the largest wikis are wikipedia, which is somewhat idiosyncratic, and the original C2 wiki, which does not fit the description given.

Simple installation, and it works! Thank you for this Wiki BozMo(talk) deleted German spam link here

For those who are wondering, I believe the text in the comparison table is from Isaac Asimov's Foundation. Tualha 15:33, 2 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Wiki (pronounced "wickee") is also a common forename among female Maori in New Zealand.

This is completely irrelevant to this article as wikis are not named after the Maori first name. So at best it is a disambiguation -- but we do not disambiguate terms which we do not write articles about, and we generally don't write articles about first names, Maori or otherwise. So I removed it.—Eloquence 04:34, Jan 19, 2004 (UTC)

I snipped the following paragraph from the article for the reasons given above:

In Maori Wiki means "weekend" and, as the diminutive form of Wikitoria, the Maori version of Victoria, is a popular Christian name.

chocolateboy 16:37, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Yeesh, always wondered why it was called Wiki. :-P

why, of course everyone knows that Wiki really stands for Web-Initiated-Knowledge-Interface. -buzzjazz


I think that this wiki topic on wikipedia needs a section about wikis being used by businesses. Also, I would like to have a discussion with those interested about this topic because I am working on creating a business proposal to the company I work for regarding wikis. Any thoughts on these topics I have mentioned above. (Maxbolster 21:58, 30 March 2006 (UTC))

Webster's Third International Dictionary says "weekee"

When I first saw the word wikipedia, I thought it was Y-key similar to Y-key-key. "weekee, weekee" sounds similar to quickly, quickly showing that Hawaiian has somehow been influenced be English.


I corrected the pronunciation note from "weekee" to "wicky", because that's how it's pronounced. In doing so I had to remove the SAMPA reference because I know nothing about SAMPA and so couldn't be sure if the reference made any sense in the light of my correction. Someone who knows might want to look at that. -- Hex 22:13, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)

What is the source for this pronounciation? The first wiki says wee-kee, see pstudier 08:03, 2004 May 20 (UTC)
Well, I must say I've only ever heard it pronounced "wicky" - maybe "weekee" is correct for the original Hawaiian word, but who gets to choose the "correct" way of saying it in the WikiWikiWeb sense? There are certainly some things that rely on the "newer" pronounciation - puns like "QWiki", for instance - and "Wikipedia" seems to come out as either "Wicca-pedia", "Wicky-pedia" or "Wickih-pedia" (never, AFAIK, "Weekee-pedia"). But I don't know what "the wider world" does, or even how you'd find out... - IMSoP 14:13, 20 May 2004 (UTC)
I've always pronounced/thought of it as "weekee-pedia" (and the general term as "weekee-weekee"). I would never have used "wicky" - that just seems wrong to me, and I never even thought that someone would pronounce it differently until I saw this. Maybe we should have a poll, and see what the prevailing pronunciation is - we'll probably find nearly everyone's calling it the "why-key-pedia", or something... -- DrBob 19:00, 20 May 2004 (UTC)
Heh, just goes to show - maybe we should just list both pronounciations as in general usage. Out of interest, one context in which this came up was when Jimbo was interviewed on Newsweek (sound file available here) - they started off saying "Wickuh-pedia" and gradually shifted toward "Whicky-pedia". And now I listen again, he did in fact say "wiki", as "wicky"; but that doesn't prove anything except how he uses it - I guess Ward Cunningham would pronounce it "Weekee", hence the FAQ linked above... IMSoP 19:19, 20 May 2004 (UTC)
I added back the "weekee" pronunciation, so now it lists both. Someone who knows what they're doing with SAMPA might like to add that back. -- DrBob 21:33, 24 May 2004 (UTC)
Could somebody please convert my "old standard" pronunciation guide to IPA? I'm not at a point where I understand IPA. Thanks. — Stevie is the man! Talk | Contrib 01:14, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Language, like a wiki, is formed by consensus. Language is a movement that evolves over time. There is no such thing as "proper English." English itself evolved from Proto-Germanic, and Proto-Germanic evolved from Proto-Indo-European. Language evolution is still happening! It is a slow and consistent process. One day the the phrase "have to" will become "hafta," and perhaps "haffa" after that. The Hawaiian pronouncation of "wiki" does not matter--the "correct" pronouncation is the one that is most popular--the one decided by consensus. Squideshi 21:29, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

BTW, I believe that in Hawai'i it would actually be pronounced "VeeKee". Just an FYI, NOGI (not of great importance.)

I cut this text: "But the history of every individual wiki is faithfully preserved in its collective page histories." Wikis vary considerably in their handling of page history, with many of the most influential wikis purging page history with considerable regularity. UninvitedCompany 20:05, 19 May 2004 (UTC)

Wiki communities section

Currently over forty wikis are listed in the Wiki communities section of the article. I believe this is too many and it will likely grow even bigger in the future. What I suggest is either the number is reduced to say five representative Wikis or else the list is spun off into its own article e.g. List of Wikis or List of Wiki websites. Currently I am favouring the second option. Also what is the plural of Wiki? As it comes from a polynesian language, then I would guess that Wiki is the plural. -- Popsracer 04:00, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I agree. It's a long list of many wiki: list of wiki. It seems redundant to keep more-or-less identical lists (here and WorldWideWiki: SwitchWiki), Biggest wikis ... but how should I choose "representative" wiki ? Won't someone be upset they were left out ? -- DavidCary 19:06, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Wiki History

I removed the following paragraph because I :-

Most wiki history is purposely lost (or ignored), as the wiki nature is to forget the past, and what [sic] known is often only known as lore through an oral tradition. [ original version ]

chocolateboy 19:48, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Lots of vandals visiting the page lately. Wonder why. Jay 19:25, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I've heard that wiki is actually an acronym for "What I Know Is". Is this true? And if so, should it not be mentioned here?

i believe that is what would be called a backronym. 22:49, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
Wiki Trivia-

Sophie (The Last of the Red Hot Mamas) Tucker recorded a song with near-risque lyrics rendered with Mae West-type suggestiveness called "Makin' Wicky-Wacky Down in Waikiki" The song is attributed to Lane, Hoffman, Curtis, Powell and Cavanaugh. Find it, listen and enjoy.

Updated image for history comparison

I updated the image for history comparison with this PNG to replace this JPG version. I used the exact same content as the original image, just saved it as a PNG for greater legibility. --Patik 04:08, Aug 3, 2004 (UTC)

Opening Sentence

Could I invite someone to try to improve the opening sentence. I've tried and cannot get something perfect but the "others" at the end is a bit vague. "editing is open to a wide group of people, often everybody"?--BozMo|talk 13:03, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

HTML entities instead of real quotes in markup comparison?

There is a slight problem with the markup comparison table. It would be more correct to show that in HTML, quotation marks are more accurately represented by &quot;; this would further show the advantage of wiki-type markup.

What's the Difference?

Can anyone tell me what a wiki can do that Microsoft Frontpage cannot? We have an experimental wiki running at my company, and my boss keeps asking why we don't use the WYSIWYG Frontpage instead of the weird wiki markup. It does seem like Frontpage can do everything a wiki can do, and maybe more easily! Jlloganiii

The thing is that Microsoft FrontPage is a computer program, while a wiki is a Web site that is editable by users. If you want, you can edit a Web page with FrontPage and then convert it to a Web page that has a format suitable for a wiki. 2004-12-29T22:45Z 21:54, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)

The Frontpage service is just a software package which lets you easily edit web pages while they're "live" on a server. It doesn't provide any of a Wiki's multi-user features, nor does it keep track of the history of how a page has been edited in the past. Some other wiki features absent from a typical Frontpage setup may be desirable, such as the template system for including boilerplate text in pages. Frontpage also doesn't place restrictions on the type of content you can add to a page, so someone could add potentially harmful code, either maliciously or by accident. Last, the Frontpage client software costs money and only runs on Windows, whereas most wiki software is free and requires only a web browser for the client. Frontpage is fine for a small, private workgroup portal at a company but for many applications it's not suitable. Rhobite 22:11, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)

I'm still a little fuzzy on the multi-user features a wiki offers. How do they differ from a set of user accounts on an FTP server? Jlloganiii 20:27, 2005 Jun 5 (UTC)

Different wiki packages vary wildly in what sort of multi-user features they offer. Many don't even have a concept of user accounts. The core concept of a wiki, the "zen of Wiki" as it were, is the ability to "edit this page". Everything else is elaboration. -- Cyrius| 06:13, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
In general, a wiki system has all the required elements to manage users and user access, often with far more power than FTP. FTP for uploading webpages is designed mainly for use among relatively small groups of people, not the general internet public. When you put it all together, FrontPage plus a standard like FTP does not have the degree of automation for this sort of application (the wiki philosophy).

Liguistist Nit-pick

The name was based on the Hawaiian term wiki wiki, meaning "quick" or "informal." It is used commonly in Hawaii as part of its rich "pidgin English", the creole language of the islands.

A pidgin is not a creole. The latter has its own grammar and the former doesn't. Since pidgin English is in quotes, I'm willing to accept it as being a colloquialism. If it bothers anyone else besides me (I am probably listed under anal retentive) let's change it. Otherwise, I'll chill (excuse me, "chill"). --KSnortum 21:01, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I noticed that immediately as well. I don't personally care what it says, I think the point is clear. The false-synonymity (word?) of pidgin and creole just caught my attention. Bmearns 19:52, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
If you think you can make it more accurate, that's fine by me. I am not familiar with this matter. — Knowledge Seeker 07:06, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
True, though I'm not sure we should assume the pidgin english bit is the inaccuracy just because of the quotes. Isn't there some hawaiian language source we can consult on this? --W(t) 07:10, 2005 Jun 14 (UTC)

I've e-mailed a Hawaiian friend of mine and hopefully she either knows or can point us in the right direction. From the WP articles on the subject, I see that Hawaiian Pidgin and Hawaiian Creole are often used interchangeably, so this isn't quite the gaff I thought it was. My own search for the Hawaiian work for "quick" or "fast" came up with two words, 'Awiwi and wikiwiki. I suspect the first is native Hawaiian and the second is the creole. --KSnortum 03:00, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Well, she never answered my e-mail, because she was in Maui with her husband! When I asked her the Hawaiian word for quick she immediately said, "You mean wikiwiki?" When I asked her if this was a native Hawaiian word or part of the creole she wasn't sure; she could only say it was more "informal" than 'Awiwi. So I guess we'll leave until some better authority says differently. --KSnortum 22:46, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

"Wiki" is a real Hawaiian word, not pidgin. Accorrding to this well respected Hawaiian Dictionary: "vs. To hurry, hasten; quick, fast, swift. See alawiki. Hele wiki, quick time, quick step. E wiki ʻoe, mai lohi (FS 111), hurry, don't delay. (Probably PEP witi, although Easter Island viti may be a Tahitian loan.) hoʻ To hurry, hasten."

I hope I can resolve all this. With a pidgin or a creole language, words are borrowed or used from other source languages. This does not invalidate the fact that the words were, and still are, fully bonafide terms in those source languages. Therefore, "wiki" or "wikiwiki" may or may not be in Hawaiian pidgin or Hawaiian creole, but such a question is irrelevant because these most definitely are Hawaiian words (the latter word being a reduplication of the former). See these two definitions from the respected Hawaiian Dictionary: (Hawaiian Dictionary) and (Hawaiian Dictionary). A pdf of the relevant page of the dictionary, covering both terms, is here: (Hawaiian Dictionary). This is the standard accepted dictionary of the language: Pukui and Elbert, "Hawaiian Dictionary," Honolulu, Hawai'i: University of Hawai'i Press, 1986, 572 pp. A complete copy of the dictionary, including the pesky issue of pronunciations, is here, with a complete set of page images, and a complete fully searchable text file: (Hawaiian Dictionary). Bob51 08:56, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Wikiwiki is definitely more of a Hawaiian word, rather than Hawaiian Pidgin, especially in the context of this article. The word Wikiwiki was borrowed into Hawaiian Pidgin from Hawaiian (Pidgin Dictionary).
Also, please note that Hawaiian Pidgin is ALWAYS referred to as Pidgin by the local pidgin speakers, NOT Creole. It is "Da Pidgin" (the only Pidgin) on the islands. Any attempt by the linguists to rename the language would seem futile to the local people.--Endroit 01:46, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

British or American?

New nit-pits, or questions really. Is US-English preferred over British? I keep running into words I think are misspelled and they turn out to be proper British spellings. I don't want to appear Amero-centric but at least an article should be consistent. Realise is one I ran into here. --KSnortum 01:36, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Third Person Neutral

I also ran into "he" where the gender of the person is unknown ("perhaps the vandal will realise his opinions are unwanted...") I tend towards they and their in these cases. All of this because I wanted to make an edit, but I wasn't bold! --KSnortum 01:36, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

I changed this to consistantly use the plural, "vandals". It was already plural in this paragraph some of the time, and this avoids using "his". --MCheney 24 August 2005

A joke?

Some also have attributed Wikipedia's rapid growth to its decision not to use CamelCase.

I see it is true that a capital "P" could collide with the jigsaw puzzle globe logo. KVenzke 15:31, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

Can we make the introduction a bit more friendly?

Wikipedia:Wiki is often used to refer people, new to wiki, to explain what wiki is and we, at our wiki, link here in the opening sentence of our main page. However, users clicking through are confronted by quite a crowded description. The thing which seems most obviously excessive is all the pronunciation information - it's detracting from this page's main function. I propose losing all but the link to the pronounciation section (if even that is necessary, so early into an entry). It would seem a shame to have to link elsewhere. --Darrel Stadlen 15:32, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

I agree, it's a mess. I want to introduce this to my dad, but with a description like that, I'm afraid he'll steer clear of anything with the word wiki, including wikipedia.

How Does One First Create a WIKI community?

I have the same question.

Well you get a server ,install a wiki software and establish an internet connection... that's how you do it. Wiki's just (technically) a server application... Or do you mean the WikiWikiWeb?--Kakurady 14:15, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
Technically has little to do with it, and community is more than the question. Rossmay--Rossmay 04:48, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Wiki Icon

I actually came to this page wondering if there was a icon or symbol commonly used to represent a Wiki. Does anyone know if such an icon exists, or perhaps have any ideas as to what one could look like? I've tried a Google image search but to little avail -- the best perhaps being a Wiki book cover which featured a sort of 3D representation of the infinity sign, which is in my opinion still a pretty poor attempt. It would be great to have a graphic that conveyed a message of liquidity and expanse of information, but doing so in an easily understood and simple manner does not sound like an easy task ... --Shp0ng1e 18:15, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Words that are synonyms in Hawaiian are not necessarily synonyms in English

The article currently says,

Also, ʻāwīwī in the Hawaiian is used in place of wiki, Wiki, wikiwiki or Wikiwiki.

I've never seen this, and none of the Wiki-theory sites I know (Ward's, Meatball, CommunityWiki) have a reference for it, either.

I guess the point this sentence is trying to make is that āwīwī is a synonym for "wiki" in Hawaiian, and that it means quick in Hawaiian. I think that's probably cogent on haw:wiki but not on en:Wiki.

I'm removing the sentence, but I'd be open to a citation that shows that āwīwī is actually used as a synonym for "wiki" in English. --ESP 17:04, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

AID Votes Needed

This page needs additional votes toward the Article Improvement Drive. Squideshi 22:41, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Wiki concept prior to software

What about the concept of collabarative development and information gathering prior to the software application? For example, a notice board for travelers or a central place for say a village to collect stories etc? zen master T 21:48, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

WikiNode redirects here

I merged some content from it into the article as per its AFD debate. Johnleemk | Talk 11:33, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

i like wikis


I Am on a Public at a highschool, our teacher makes us use wikipedia for everything as i am a senior and contributor to wiki, i am on here editing vandalism by the freshman,sophmore,juniors. I apologize for this and please keep that in mind from this IP address. I have an account on wikipedia, Lorddemon. Contact me via user talk if you have any questions - This is me.Lorddemon 15:27, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

To ALL : --->Having experienced homelessness (by losing an investment), I see that current "shelters" are warehouses, the pinnacle of Tokenism, the visible tip of the iceberg. Everyone needs a home, to maintain a steady balance to succeed.....homeless people are on shifting sand! "Shelters" should be "clearing houses" ...(only a short stay & then re-located into the community)... a clearing house with a built in "buddy-system" ["matching" process begins the first day with someone who, like themselves, needs someone to look after their interests!] that prevents "drowning"; for even the oldest book says that it is "not good for man to be alone"...he just gets into trouble. A "clearing house" staff would get to know the person quickly and intensely (A predator wouldn't like to be known, so he flees the community.....which is your Best form of protection!).

People would work in the "clearing houses" that know the community and its' people, like matchmakers, matching up folks with a compatable job, and living with someone in their home. The same book says "Open your homes to strangers", and with proper human concern for the homeless first..... [instead of social "companies" who use the homeless for their funding & grants, jobs and their own homes & lives.....and are themselves the other problem, besides obscene community apathy nationwide.] .....with proper concern for the people themselves who need a home, and who could fit quickly into a community's job and housing structure, and complement it..... instead of herding the homeless out of sight into a warehouse.....or, in one case, a basement "sewer" [As single men in Madison, WI are treated, with very unsanitary conditions] Everyone needs a grow into a mature, contributing community member & good neighbor, with a real life!

A model of such a new system should be set up, and then used everywhere for man's humanity to man! --->>>(Old folks who face having to leave their homes, because they can't take care of themselves adequately, and terrified of "old folks home/managed care facilities", could be properly matched up with a compatible homeless person, and both would benefit!) Best regards, James Sorrell

General - A Homeless Solution: IF people care! From: fuzzwald 3:45 am To: CaptChurch

A while ago, homelessness was seen as a problem that other countries had. Poorer countries. But, during the Reagan years, the idea took hold that homeless people deserved their predicament and/or wanted it. Limbaugh's "homeless update" was symptomatic of the cold hearted, greed headed, stupid rationalization of suffering that gets de-oderized and pawned off as conservative ideology. Now we have a whole generation of Americans who are none the wiser. (More recently, the same transformation of thought is being directed at democracy and the Bill of Rights. But that's for another part of this board: "The Declaration of RE-Independence".)

This plan to aid the homeless is an improvement over the current state of affairs. FLASH129.24.51.169

Lisa LeBrecque [policy & advocacy director] of the New Mexico Coalition to End Homelessness: "Living on the streets is so hard on people's health; the homeless are three to four times more likely to DIE prematurely than those with homes! It's important for people to remember that folks are homeless all year round and not just @ Christmas!" {3,000+ homeless in Albuquerque each night <--NHC for the Homeless Coalition quote.....not to mention ALL the other cities & towns in DisneyLandUSA, where most people live in elitist FantasyLand129.24.51.169}

Context should be more General

A lot of the content on this page seems to apply to specific implementations as opposed to wiki generally. For example:

user-editable "source code", which is also the format stored locally on the server

I don't know of any wiki that specifically doesn't store the wikitext, but it's conceivable that some implementation would not, and would instead preserve the "parsed" markup. Perhaps I'm being too picky, but other examples exist as well. I believe the example has already been mentioned about implementations that regularly purge old histories. I think a small effort should be made to make it clear when certain features, even if highly common, may be implementation specific, and do not actually apply to wiki in general. My $0.02 Bmearns 20:00, 27 February 2006 (UTC)..

I'm still gettin to know other wiki's

but they don't all preserve all changes for very long. I know on CommunityWiki where I'v been working lately they only keep revisions about 2 weeks or so. a lott MeatballWiki pages, too. you click on other revsions and there are like none available. so, I might wann change the fourth paragraph to refelct that tho I haven't read most of this article yet. skizznologic3.1 19:56, 11 March 2006 (UTC)


Wikipedia examples

Wikipedia is used in many examples throughout the text, but it's not until toward the end that it's explained what it is and why it may be relevant. Should a quick blurb at its first use (such as "Wikipedia, a wiki-based encyclopedia, ..." be included? Granted, people will probably know what it is, seeing as this article is posted *on* wikipedia. However, from the standpoint of the article, it shouldn't immediately be assumed that the reader knows what wikipedia is. Especially since this article could appear elsewhere (given that it's liscenced under GFDL). So I added a blurb along these lines in the article. Thoughts?

--Matthew0028 22:29, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree you. We shouldn't assume that the reader of this article knows or have heard of wikipedia, or that the reader is reading it here. Shanes 22:39, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Information annealing

This sounds a lot like the concept of information annealing (where I added a reference to the concept of wikis in the preexisting wiki entry for information annealing), am I right? (I wish you had a keyword search applying to one wiki entry only so that I could quickly find whether information annealing is mentioned in the wiki entry, for example.)

--Digression from a tangent 22:29, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

The search function you request is included in your web browser, press ctrl-f on Microsoft Windows machines to access it. -- stillnotelf is invisible 02:59, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

"Wiki" in Firefox

I notice that this page has recently been protected from editing by newer users, presumably because of vandalism. I would suggest that given the uncontroversial nature of the subject being detailed this article is attracting new vandals because of the way it is accessed through firefox (and perhaps other browsers as well). Until recently, typing "wiki" into the address bar of Firefox brought up the main page of Wikipedia, and now it brings up this. Any vandals which might otherwise have gone to the protected main page now come here. It's not a problem for people like me who generally only check their watchlist, but it might be wise to figure out why "wiki" now comes here, and change it back if possible given that most people who type it will be looking for Wikipedia, rather than this particular article. - Hayter 20:35, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Just a side note to Firefox's behavior: when a user types a term into the address bar that is not a URI, Firefox does an I'm-Feeling-Lucky Google search on that particular term. Googling "wiki" brings up this page as the first result and is, therefore, the I'm-Feeling-Lucky result. So basically this behavior is dependent upon Google rather than Firefox. Vordhosbn 15:52, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I disagree- since "wiki" is not native to wikipedia but a concept predating wikipedia i think it is apropriate that one is directed to this page for typing "wiki". on the issue of easy access to wikipedia using firefox; Firefox now has a plugin for its search engine toolbar that allows you to choose between different search engines, one of those is wikipedia. i use it all the time and highly recomend it. to add wikepedia to your search engine tool in your firefox interface, go to the search box(not adress box), click on the search symbol(usually the google "G") then scroll down the menu to "add engines" and you will find a list of search engines to add. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 07:34, 18 April 2006

Poor phrasing

as users are bound to add incorrect information to the wiki page is easily misread conceptually as as users are [legally] bound to add incorrect information to the wiki page. Changing to incorrect or disputed might help bounce the covert legally more quickly. Another option: are soon bound. MaxEnt 21:37, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

[vandalism Removed]

Wikify redirect

The wikify page currently redirects to this page. Given that wikify is a commonly used verb? and generates over 400,000 hits on google (and was used today in my office by a non-geek) it seems appropriate to expand on it.

Defined in the wiktionary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sploggens (talkcontribs) 02:37, 22 April 2006

wiki wiki photo + wikify

deleted the photo as it didnt add anything and in a REAL encyclopedia you wouldn't have a photo for somehing like that (i know why it was there, but it isnt needed)

also, wikify redirects here, and its pointless.

Aw, c'mon. Don't be so rigid. Put the picture back. It added some humanity to the definition and broke up the textual monotony.
I liked that picture a lot. (cascader)
Man, this is the future, accept it, embrace its benefits, or don't, and hide off like a hermit or something. Our encyclopaedia can have images - it's not limited by printing costs. So don't delete it to keep this 'pedia like the old ones are.

I think it's intensely stupid that this article is protected. Give me a break.


"...allows users to easily add, remove, or otherwise edit all content, very quickly and easily..."

Does anyone else feel that this sentence is a bit redundant?

'Wiki' in dictionary

"In English, it is an adverb meaning "quickly" or "fast"."

Really? Not in my dictionaries! Could someone please either confirm this statement with evidence, or confirm that it should be deleted.

Hi! I could not find this version of the meaning of the word wiki in any dictionary either. (29/05/06) - I believe the statement in question is incorrect. (nor have I yet heard anyone use the word wiki to refer to anything other than it's original English meaning; ie (from wiktionary): Noun : wiki Any website based on any kind of Wiki software which enables users to add to, edit and delete from the site's content quickly. )

Nor is WikiWiki, or any other silly word

The quote in the markup/display example

What are those two lines from? Are they possibly from Foundation by Isaac Asimov? 05:08, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it is.

Thanks. I finally picked up another copy of that book and I *just* got to that part... 8 hours too late. Damn.

What is the future of this technology (Wiki)

All are invited to share their knowledge.


I think that the term 'wiki' used throughout the article ought to be debolded. The article lacks consistency in the bolding of the term 'wiki'. --Porqin 18:48, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Query about website address

This article explains how Wiki software is a simplification of HTML, and gives a diagram to show differences between these sources of software. Can some one please explain why it is, if Wikipedia uses wiki software as opposed to HTML, that the address for a wikipedia site begins with the initials for "hypertext protocol"? Also, should't this article have the section stating that Wikis follow true hypertext be removed, because, if wikis are written in wiki software and not hypertext mark-up language, the links in such media are "Wikilinks" and not "hyperlinks"? ACEO 19:18, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

HTTP is for the transfer of hypertext (naturally), the information transferred to your computer from the web server IS in HTML (check the source code by going Tools >> View Source (in IE). Wiki's are written in wiki markup language and saved to a database. Upon request the wiki markup language is parsed into HTML (changing [[Water]] to <a href="/wiki/Water">Water</a> and '''Text''' to <b>Text</b>). Wikis don't use use wiki software as opposed to HTML, wiki software just changes user inputted wiki markup into hypertext markup (and user inputted wikilinks to hypertext links). -- Tsuite T/C 12:04, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Tsuite is entirely correct. We should to put this information in the article. Is there some way we could adjust this article so people understand that "wikitext" is designed to be easy for humans to edit, and understand the seperation between editing the wikitext stored in the database, and viewing the final rendered page (various headers, footers, sidebars, CSS references, and the wikitext are copied into a temporary page, then that temporary page is translated to HTML and sent to the user's browser). The final rendered page is in HTML, but it wasn't written in HTML, it was written in wikitext.

Surely someone can come up with a better explanation. Perhaps an analogy to seeing a famous sculpture on TV -- what you are seeing is transmitted in radio waves, but the sculpture wasn't sculpted out of radio waves, it was sculpted out of hard rock. Perhaps an analogy to to the famous authors who developed their books on 3x5 cards -- while writing the book, it's easier to insert, delete, and rearrange sentences in the book by shuffling around those index cards, but the final "presentation" is the bound book. Perhaps an analogy with baking bread -- the final baked bread is the "presentation", but it's a lot easier to make the next loaf of bread if we keep some "source" yeast around. -- 16:02, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Linux wiki link

I've just removed a link to a Linux wiki pages index, because the whole thing was in (I think) Hungarian. Site url had TLD .hu by anonamys, 18 July 2006 @ 20.18 GMT


The capitalization of Wiki/wiki seems to be pretty random.
Or is there a pattern that I just haven't noticed yet? --Frescard

I think "wiki" should always be lowercase when referring to wiki in general (unless it's the first word of a sentence). -- 16:02, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Wiki markup section

In this section it's noted that:

"Many people switch between wiki engines, from one to another. Because of the difficulty in using several syntaxes, many people are putting considerable effort into defining a wiki markup standard (see efforts by Meatball and TikiWiki)."

Having followed the links, it is not clear at all that many people -- that's a WP:Weasel phrase -- are putting in effort. I don't think it is true. And it's not clear Meatball or TikiWiki are actually trying to make a standard -- TikiWiki is simply defining its own standard and Meatball has a short list of bullet points a couple of Meatballers have posted. That is not "putting in considerable effort". This whole section is weasely. Hence will be doing a harsh edit on this in a second. — Donama 05:43, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I remember a standardization thing a while back (there was a mailing list and such with various wiki authors and we discussed it a bit). It never took off, unfortunately. I'm guessing it is more due to lack of time in the parties involved then lack of effort. To be honest, this whole article looks like it was written five years ago... mayby I can update it a bit... RN 07:32, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

redirects to "wiki"

Wikify Redirect

This redirect is unhelpful. I want to know the syntax to mark an article that needs wikifying. Entering 'wikify' as a search word should take me to a something looking like {{wikify|September 2006}} instead of here. JMcC 16:31, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

wikify now redirects to a far more useful page. Does that look good to you?

What is wikisphere ? When I click on it, I get redirected to "wiki". I've been told that when a word redirects to an article (the way "wikisphere" redirects to "wiki"), standard procedure is to mention that word in the article. But this article never mentions "wikisphere". -- 16:02, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps "wikisphere" is a synonym for "wikidom" ?

It means the same thing for wikis as blogosphere does for blogs – Qxz 16:15, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Talk page Redirect

I don't see why Talk page redirects to this page rather than to the Help:Talk page as the top of this article already suggests anyways. Since there isn't any discussion regarding why Talk page redirects here (and Talk Page doesn't) I have fixed Talk page to redirect directly to the help topic.

Patent falsehoods promote philosophy

This article is fat with opinion, to the point of contradicting itself. The reason is that some of the article's authors seem intent on promoting an ideology.

"Most wikis are open to the general public without the need to register any user account." "There is arguably greater use of wikis behind firewalls than on the public Internet." "The open philosophy of most wikis..."

Most? Would that be the most that are open to the general public or the most that are "arguably" behind firewalls?

"It is therefore better to promote plain-text editing with a few simple conventions for structure and style." "It is somewhat beneficial that users cannot directly use all the capabilities of HTML, such as JavaScript and Cascading Style Sheets."

It is better to promote one form of editing for what purpose? It is beneficial to whom? MudBath 07:59, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

The meaning of Wiki Wiki

Maj: that wiki wiki thing is wrong Maj: Maj: Wiki Wiki" is a reduplication of "waka waka"[citation needed], a Hawaiian-language word for fast. Maj: cant cite that Maj: its wrong Maj: Maj: awiwi is fast Maj: and no where in our biggest dictionary shows waka waka Maj: i mean wiki is also fast but Maj: nothing for waka waka

In my Hawaiian Dictionary (Pukui and Elbert UH Press 1986) "waka" means sharp or serrated. Wiki or wikiwiki does mean quick or swiftly. To do something quickly is "ho'owiki." Hawaiian words are often the same in the noun and adjectival form.

Waka waka is vandalism that slipped in at some point after the semi-protect. Wiki wiki couldn't be a reduplication ofwaka waka. Its definantly a reduplication of wiki. I've changed it. --Limetom 21:07, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
True. re ho'owiki - the ho'o is the standard 'ōlelo verb marker, so if one does not know a verb but the corresponding noun or adjective, simply putting "ho'o" in front of it is likely to be at least understood by the few people in the world who know mor 'ōlelo than English. Reduplication in Polynesian languages generally strengthens a word (wakawaka would be "more waka than just waka), but this is no necessarily correct in all cases (such as lomi, to massage, lomilomi, masseur, lomilomi nui - literally "massage-massage-great" -, a traditional somewhat tantric Hawaiian massage technique.
What I don't know is this: whether there is an etymological connection between wiki and "quick" or whether they are false cognates. I'd love to put it on that page, but I'm not 100% certain - "quick" is such a basic concept that wiki being a loanword itself seems somewhat absurd, but then Pukui/Elwert list some 6 additional words for "quick" which are unconnected to wiki, and exclamations to make a person speed up are among the first words that cross langage barriers ("andale!" and "dawai!" are usually inherently comprehensible from context alone for people who don't speak Spanish/Russian). Dysmorodrepanis 17:43, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

What is it is changed to Waka Waka? One would then have to change Wikipedia to Wakapedia. Perhaps, like the use of the word Google (to "Google" something"), Wiki has become part of the language, BASED on Waka. Any thoughts?

wiki was a scifi robot

The 1970s Saturday morning television science fiction series Jason of Star Command [1] featured a pocket-sized robot designated "W.1.K.1." and referred to a s "wiki" in dialogue. A screenshot image of the filming prop is here [2]. As far as I have been able to determine, there is no connection between this use of the term wiki and the usage discussed elsewhere in this entry. Should it be added as a second definition/description? Lonn.myronuk 17:15, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

It should be added as a link to the W1K1 page, if that even exists. The real name isn't wiki, thats just a reference

Richdex ???

Today, Richdex the Open Free Online Directory is, by far, the world's largest wiki; the English-language Wikipedia is the second-largest

I have a very hard time buying this assertion. It looks to me like Richdex is a Google-ad filled wikipedia wannabe. Unless someone can demonstrate otherwise, I suspect that this is simply an empty boast to drive traffic to the ad content.

I especially have a hard time believing that the team of 132 users have been able to generate 3.9 million articles in the nine months since the domain name was registered. Now a computer program generating individual pages filled with google ads... That I can believe. But I don't think it should count a viable wiki to be listed here. --Pwiscombe 19:48, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Evaristus It is amazing to be part of this page making. I am here for now expressing my willingness to make useful contributions as time goes on. However this is my first time to write something here. It is worth letting fellow wikis that my professor directed us to make use of wikis and comment. December 7, 2006 NY ESC

Add "like this one" before "Wikipedia" in 1st paragraph

I hate it when an encyopedia or dictionary refers to itself and doesn't say "this one" or something. Course I can't edit it because I am guest and too lazy to create an account.—Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

That would be a self-reference, which should not only be avoided, but sounds very, very, very unprofessional. We are not referring to ourselves, you must be confused with Wikipedia. -- Chris is me (u/c/t) 16:17, 8 January 2007 (UTC)


Sorry that I had to semi-protect the Wiki article... it's kinda ironic, huh? -- Chris is me (u/c/t) 16:17, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I was just thinking that. It's ok, we forgive you.EvilOverlord88 18:32, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Wiki project hawaii?

I can't see why wiki should be under wiki project hawaii. I know wiki means quick in hawaiian but this article is about the type of website not the hawaiian word. Da Big Bozz 01:16, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Creating a wiki

I would like to request that a wiki be made. Does anyone know where/who I should ask about this? I don't think I can do it myself: firstly, I don't know how, and secondly, I have very little computer-related knowledge. I left 2 other posts like this: one on the main page talk page and one on the LOTR portal talk page. Sorry if this's a stupid/rude question. 02:16, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Never mind. My question has been answered on both those other pages. Thank you! 19:39, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Wiki history: the first few wiki

This article discusses the first wiki (as it should). I think this article should go on to mention something about the next few wiki. I have heard rumors that, when the second wiki (or was it the third wiki?) was set up, dozens of pages were moved (not copied) to it from the first wiki. There was some controversy between people who were glad to get rid of those pages, and other people who wanted to keep those pages on the original wiki.

Perhaps the "history" section should also compare it to other Internet forums active around that time. Usenet was the biggest internet forum at that time (and its Eternal September had just begun). h2g2, 2channel were started a few years after the first wiki.

Perhaps the "history" section could also compare it to other hypertext editing systems that were becoming popular around that time, such as HyperCard.

The names of the first few wiki were ... ? -- 15:06, 26 January 2007 (UTC)


WikiIndex seems like the best resource for information about all the different wikis. Still needs more info and organization, but hopefully will become a central tool for us all.-- 15:01, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Define wiki

The current opening line is: "A wiki is a collaborative website which can be directly edited by anyone with access to it." I had changed it to: "A wiki is a type of website that can be collaboratively written, distinguished by a unique hyperlink system called wiki links." but it was reverted by Rambutan saying "Not necessarily: that's just Wikipedia." I disagree.

Wiki links are key to what makes a wiki - why do you think Ward Cunngham called it the "simplest type of database that could possibly work"? Databases are about linking information. I don't know of any wiki software that doesn't have wiki links - which are a form of hypertext slightly more advanced than the hyperlink. Open access of the wiki to lots of people is a cultural thing, and a type of wiki - not a defining characteristic ie, personal wiki's. Wiki links are key. Arguably, versioning is another distinguishing feature.

I think it also it would read better to phrase the opening line as "A wiki is a type of website that can be collaboratively written..." because this makes it more comparable to other definitions ie, blogs are a type of website as well. Elias 11:58, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

  • I like it the way it is. I took it from Wiktionary as it is concise, unambigious and easier to read and understand than what went before it. Who says databases are about linking information? They are about relationships between information and linking is just one form of relationship. Just because all wikis have links doesn't mean that that is a defining feature. The defining features (in my opinion) are collaboration and open access. Sorry if this sounds like a rant, its not. Please get back as I want to help tidy this article and we need to, yeah you got it, collaborate. --Kylemew 18:15, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
  • "can be collaboratively written" or "is collaboratively written"?

That's cool. Given the poor state this article in, I think it would merit we actualy clearly define what a wiki is because to me it doesn't seem clear. Once I know there is some consensus, I will be more than happy to add more content and fix it up. Just as background, I have spent the last six months implementing wiki's amongst other technologies as a new form of collaboration as my firm (revenue 1 billion plus). I have a lot of experience with wiki's (and collaboration for that matter), and so I just want to establish that my views are so because I have already spent a lot of time thinking about them, and spent a lot of time trying to explain it to people. I've had some big chats with a wiki guru called Stewart Mader who I am sure would be happy to have his say on the issue as well if this discussion merits it. I feel saying a wiki is defined due to its "collaboration" and "open access", in my eyes, does not do it justice. My thoughts on a wiki is that as a technology, they are nothing too special as they are more of a social revolution occuring rather than a major technological change. Therefore I think it is important to recognise these two different facets of a wiki - the cultural side, as well the technological.

What differentiates a wiki with its technology is:

1) versioning. I take it you agree that the way pages are versioned is fairly unique to wiki technology?

2) Wiki links. Wiki links are very different from normal hyperlinks, and are closer to the true form of hypertext. Tim Berner's Lee when he created the web invented hyperlinks as a stripped down version of the original hypertext invention. The inventor of wiki's was inspired by the hypertext systems of the 1980s, and with the above quote about it being a database, highlights wiki links are key to what makes a wiki a wiki.

Across all wiki platforms, you will find they are the only consistent things amongst wikis and what make them different from other technologies.

Culturally, what defines a wiki is how there is not one editor but many. This open editing philosophy which without having to say it, implies collaborative editing as you state it - is embodied by the edit button.

By your definition, you are saying that unless more than two people can edit it, it is therefore not a wiki? Whilst the collaboration aspect of a wiki is powerful, and the fact it generates a community of users around the content, that's not what makes it a wiki because arguably a group blog could be the same thing you describe. It's the 'open editing' rights that makes this type of collaboration different from other technolgy tools. As in it's not collaboration that differentiates a wiki, but collaboratively authoring.

I am writing with the interests of the article, so I don't mean to offend anyone. I hope others can offer their views Elias 11:47, 16 July 2007 (UTC) Small Text

  • No offence taken - can't see why you thought there would be. I understand that open-editing implies collaboration but thought that this would require definition too and I wanted to keep it concise. There's more to this than meets the eye isn't there? I guess we should begin with versioning, wiki-linking and open-editing/cultural revolution as the core concepts and build from there, no? Thanks man --Kylemew 15:53, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Found this simple comment in an well-recognised analyst report which differentiates blogs with wikis. "Essentially, blogs represent an author-centric view that is communication-orientated (e.g., posts and comments) whereas wikis represent a content-centric view that is collaboration-oriented (e.g., versioned pages). Blog Technology Within The Enterprise - Burton Group analysis July 2007. I think defining a wiki, just like a blog,you are wrong you can't just do so on the technology as it is largely a social phenonmenon. So in that context, I agree our definition should incorporate the collaboration features (via open editing), in addition to versioning and wiki links. Elias 04:54, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Maybe we should describe what wikis are, not what they started off as or what they should be. There are many wikis out there that do not allow open editing. I agree that group editing is a key capability of wiki software. Perhaps we need to be clear what we are describing wiki software or wiki sites.Mark 07:18, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

The concept of blogs as being author-centric and wikis article-centric is very interesting. I think, but am often wrong, that article-centricity is very important when the contributors and users of the wiki are the same people, such as when it is being used to develop a computer programme or scientific priniciple. However wikis have developed beyond this. Wikipedia for example has many more readers than users. Perhaps its time for wikis such as wikipedia to become reader-centric otherwise they run the risk of becoming repositories of inaccessible information. Perhaps we should be thinking of constructing wiki pages in the way we construct other web pages. Remembering that any web or wiki page is unlikely to be read from start to finish we need to follow simple website conventions such as: clear above the fold introduction to what is on the page , meaningful section titles, etc. If we stay article-centric we may make it harder for readers to find the information they need. For example the logical construction for an article is starting with the history of an item and then progressing to current use, leaving what most readers want to know until last. Turned into a bit of a rant didnt it - but I like this sort of discussion. Mark 21:38, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Yeah man, but you're right, are we describing the software or the sites? Its an encyclopedia not a dictionary, so I guess there's scope for both. Another angle is "how it works" ie the technology and "what it does" ie the sites and I don't think any definition would be complete without mention of the social significance (if there is any: I meet dozens of people who have no idea how wikis are put together). Do we need to break it down further? Readers do not use the sites in the same way we do. I don't know. Cheers. --Kylemew 12:45, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

This article seems to mix up two different things - the software and attributes of that software that makes Wikis possible and people's views on how a wiki should operate or the philosophy it represents. A wiki closed to 100 people on a intranet is still (to my mind a wiki) - the fact that the social group is closed is irrelevant - otherwise Citizenpidum (sp) would not be a wiki and it clearly is. --Fredrick day 17:06, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Source for Lars Aronsson quote

Wiki#_note-1 currently references "Richard Heigl, Markus Glaser, Anja Ebersbach(2006)", which is only half the needed information to make this a useful source. Which book is quoted? "Wiki. Web collaboration", ISBN 3540351507? Btw., in that case, Alexander Warta has been omitted. Tierlieb 12:21, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

"A wiki is a medium which can be edited by anyone with access to it, and provides an easy method for linking from one page to another way."

I think there is a big contradiction here. The page saying what is wiki says that everyone can edit it, but the page itself is uneditable.

dump —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:40, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

"The page saying what is wiki says that everyone can edit it, but the page itself is uneditable." you expected different here? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:57, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

"these systems could be easily tampered with"

"Critics of open-source wiki systems argue that these systems could be easily tampered with" Closed-source wiki systems could just as easily be tampered with. 13:31, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Client-side Wiki

In the Architecture section client-side wikis are mentioned using javascript. Is this referring to personal wikis? And are we sure the javascript part is correct? IMHO client-side functionality can be implemented with or without js as well. The section seems to say that client-side wikis in general are implemented using javascript, which (again, imho) is wrong. Zsomboro

Guerilla merge

Merge guerilla wiki here as proposed by User:16@r on 30 October 2007.

Support -- I feel this article would benefit from a section sexy beast in the corporate setting and the material on peanut wikis would fit well as a subsection. I've set up several wikis myself for small organizations, and there a number of issues that recurrently come up in that context concerning privacy, release of sensitive information, and liability. Note that I am supporting a merge if that is the direction this takes, and not the preservation of the present content of the guerilla wiki page, which is a separate matter. MaxEnt (talk) 10:03, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
Support Would make an excellent subsection. Agree with MaxEnt regarding guerilla wiki's current content.--Hu12 (talk) 21:39, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Support I think it should be a subsection, guerilla wiki is a stub article as it is anyway, and it is within the category of a wiki. (Fiv5katz (talk) 01:26, 20 November 2007 (UTC))
Support Contains neither sufficient content nor the potential for sufficient content to justify it's own article. Not to mention it may be argued to be a Neologism -Verdatum (talk) 18:48, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete I looked into a good way to merge the info, and it just feels like such a neologism that I don't see any good place to put it. Nor is the information particularly worthy of it's own section. A Google search shows the only time the term comes up is in relation to the Wikipedia article itself, tiddlywiki, or used in other contexts entirely (e.g. Exploiting Wikipedia to start grassroots campaigns). Without reference to a reputable authority on wikis using the term, I don't see any reason to include it. -Verdatum 15:37, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

To followup, the article has been deleted. -Verdatum (talk) 17:47, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

'See also' section

I did some simple cleanup of this section according to WP:LAYOUT#See_also. Should the 'See Also' section repeat links already listed at the bottom of the article in the Template:Wiki topics box? -Verdatum (talk) 19:26, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Spirit of the wiki or spirit of wiki - why is it not in Wikipedia?

I've heard the term "spirit of the wiki" and "spirit of wiki" thrown around alot, but Wikipedia doesn't seem to define or describe it. This seems like a vast oversight. Why hasn't anyone done this? Does it violate the "spirit of the wiki"? :-p --Fandyllic (talk) 12:44 PM PST 6 Dec 2007 —Preceding comment was added at 20:45, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Typically wiki spirit is referenced in the context of a technological or policy restriction that makes it difficult to have collaborative development or a low barrier to entry, such as a concept of people "owning" articles, page protection, or verified user identities. It's certainly worthy of discussion. Dcoetzee 03:52, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
it's not talked about because wikipedia doesn't possess wiki spirit —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:50, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Re: "Definitely not a software engine by that entry's definition."

Software engine says, "A software engine is a computer program that outputs source code or markup code that simultaneously becomes the input to another computer process." Now, in your browser do <View><Page Source> (or something similar). Notice that this Wiki transmitted HTML (markup code) and Javascript (source code) to your browser (another computer process) that was simultaneously executed. Timhowardriley (talk) 20:45, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid i muddied things by not reading the entire software engine entry, and then writing, "by that entry's definition". By that definition, most wikis are software engines. But the important thing here is that the term software engine is more likely to confuse then educate readers. In any case, there are many perfectly good wikis that are not software engines - e.g., WikidPad, VoodooPad, etc. --John_Abbe (talk) 11:20, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

It's hard for me to imagine how using a term that is more specific can be more likely to confuse than using a term that is more general. In any case, of course, if some wikis are not software engines then the more general term should be used. Timhowardriley (talk) 18:01, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Hits per day

Does anyone know why this article gets so many hits, 3 000 000 a day [3]. Is is because a lot of people accidentally hit this off the main page or something, or is it because people want to know what the wiki in wikipedia stands for? Tom (talk) 14:52, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

A large number of hits may stem from the fact that if you do a Google search for wiki (as a short search term that will obviously have wikipedia as the top hit) this page is the first web-page listed. A lot of people, particularly those that are not to savvy about the internet will use search engines every time they want to go to their favorite sites rather than bookmarking them (simply because they haven't learnt how to) or just typing in the address. That's my theory anyway... Shearluck (talk) 13:05, 10 January 2008 (UTC)


Ctrl+F "described the the essence" -- (talk) 21:23, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

If you see a typo, there's no need to bring it up on the talk page. Just fix it yourself. (However, since you already mentioned it here, I'll fix it.) Pyrospirit (talk · contribs) 21:28, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Cannot edit w/o logging in. Funnily the line below the typo reads "A wiki invites all users to edit any page" :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:34, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, unfortunately, I had to protect this page after a ton of vandalism within minutes of it being unprotected. I'll keep watch and reconsider but it doesn't look likely to be freed up soon. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:14, 18 March 2008 (UTC)


This page is the target of 20 redirects, not bad... 16@r (talk) 13:16, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

There are actually 38 redirects, 20 are on the first page. --Unixguy (talk) 18:45, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Edit conflict resolution

I came to this page looking for info on how Wiki's handle "simultaneous" updates. I couldn't find it, so hoped to see it in a FAQ. No FAQ! I subsequently found the answer, under Edit Conflict Resolution, by looking into Ward Cunningham's web site (no locks - didn't think there could be - just first Save wins, 2nd gets notified (by automatic diff?)). But sure this question must occur to many people interested in understanding Wiki's. Could such a section be added? Edetic (talk) 22:05, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, this is a per-implimentation design consideration. Conflict resolution can take place in a number of different ways on various wiki implimentations. What you found was just how resolution takes place with Mediawiki. While it's not impossible, I personally don't see how this sort of content can be added to the article (certainly not without reference anyway). -Verdatum (talk) 18:40, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Use in education

Wikis have been used as educational tools to help students in higher education; perhaps there could be a section entitled "Educational uses of wikis". ACEOREVIVED (talk) 21:06, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikis have been used as tools to help countless applications. Does it really help the article to detail them? And if it does, can you provide Reputable Sources to support this addition of content? -Verdatum (talk) 18:47, 11 March 2008 (UTC)


Sorry, I see it was a bad idea to remove the protection, so it's back again. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:57, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Lack of Recent Citation

"Wikipedia is one of the best known wikis." I'd like this to have a new citation. Is it doable? Or is it still recent enough to be considered good?Beam (talk) 03:54, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Best known or best-known?

Unless it's supposed to mean "well-known," isn't this POV? (talk) 19:25, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Article is in a sorry state

This article is in a very sad state. It lost nearly a third of all of its information in a single vandalism event, here, and no one has caught it until now? That's ridiculous. Gary King (talk) 03:40, 11 April 2008 (UTC)


In this edit, a user changed the definition completely, from

A wiki is a medium which can be edited by anyone with access to it, and provides an easy method for linking from one page to another.


A wiki is computer software that allows users to easily edit, create, and link web pages.

- with no other reference or justification than exclaiming "Medium? It's software.", apparently unaware of the Wikipedia principle that information should be based on reliable sources, not personal opinions. (It also contradicts most of the rest of the article, and the fact that there is a separate entry about Wiki software.)

For the word "wiki" as it is used today, all the reliable sources that I am aware of give a version of the first definition, e.g. the Oxford English Dictionary:

A type of web page designed so that its content can be edited by anyone who accesses it, using a simplified markup language. [4]

or the Britannica article:

World Wide Web (WWW) site that can be modified or contributed to by users. Wikis can be dated to 1995, when American computer programmer Ward Cunningham created a new collaborative technology for organizing information on Web sites. Using a Hawaiian term meaning “quick,” he called this new software WikiWikiWeb ...[5]

It is true that Cunningham used "wiki" initially to denote one specific program, his first implementation of the concept around 1995:

I named the technology WikiWikiWeb. [...] My first implementation was as a Unix program, which are traditionally radically abbreviated and all lower case: cal for Calendar. So, following this convention, my first implementation of WikiWikiWeb technology was with a program named wiki. This shows up in the URL for the site and has become the shorthand term for the technology.[6]

In "the technology", it is not specified if the medium or the software is meant, but further down he seems to indicate that he is talking about the medium:

I wanted an unusual word to name for what was an unusual technology. I was not trying to duplicate any existing medium, like mail, so I didn't want a name like electronic mail (email) for my work.

In any case, the prevalent usage today seems to be the medium, not the software (similar to database vs. database management system). That seems also to have been the conclusion of the publishers of the OED, to whom the above correspondence of Ward Cunningham was directed.

Regards, High on a tree (talk) 17:13, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I notice the mention about 'knowledge management' is still in the lead. I'm not sure if that should belong there or not? Gary King (talk) 17:20, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Differences between Wiki and Content Management Systems

I need to clarify. The differences between a Wiki and a Content Management System was previously present in this article and was removed. I propose putting it back.

The information about differences between a Wiki and a Content Management System is valuable information (assuming it is accurate). If this information is not provided here then is it available somewhere else? If it is not found in another location then it does need to exist somewhere and I suggest that it be returned to this article (though I believe the wording could be cleaned up).

Here is the information that was removed for reference:

Wikis have shared and encouraged certain features with generalized content management systems (CMS), which are used by enterprises and communities-of-practice. Those looking to compare a CMS with an enterprise wiki should consider these basic features:[citation needed]

  1. The name of an article is embedded in the hyperlink.
  2. Articles can be created or edited at anytime by anyone (with certain limitations for protected articles).
  3. Articles are editable through the web browser.
  4. Each article provides one-click access to the history/versioning page, which also supports version differencing ("diff") and retrieving prior versions.
  5. The most recent additions/modifications of articles can be monitored actively or passively.
  6. Easy revert of changes is possible.

None of these are particular to a wiki, and some have developed independently. Still the concept of a wiki unequivocally refers to this core set of features. Taken together, they fit the generative nature of the Internet, in encouraging each user to help build it.[17] It is yet to be studied whether an enterprise wiki encourages more usage, or leads to more knowledgeable community members, than other content management systems'

Uniquenamessuck (talk) 20:03, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

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 (talkcontribs)

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