Talk:Wiki

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Wiki article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5: 30 days

Wiki was one of the good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
June 16, 2024	Featured article candidate	Not promoted
March 28, 2006	Good article nominee	Listed
June 15, 2006	Good article reassessment	Delisted
This article was on the Article Collaboration and Improvement Drive for the week of May 9, 2024.
Current status: Delisted good article

Spoken Wikipedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles that are spoken on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Spoken WikipediaWikipedia:WikiProject Spoken WikipediaTemplate:WikiProject Spoken WikipediaSpoken Wikipedia articles

This page has been cited as a source by a notable professional or academic publication:
Stvilia, B. et al. Information Quality Discussions in Wikipedia. University of Illinois U-C.

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by when more than 5 sections are present.

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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

Protection

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Best known or best-known?

Unless it's supposed to mean "well-known," isn't this POV? 71.246.222.208 (talk) 19:25, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Definition

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.

to

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. [1]

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 ...[2]

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.[3]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Vici

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]