4 ms·

While I found the concept interesting, having to request an account through a contact form just to edit an article [1] doesn't really live up to the “wiki” part

While I found the concept interesting, having to request an account through a contact form just to edit an article [1] doesn't really live up to the “wiki” part. [1]: https://wikenigma.org.uk/info/notes_for_contributors/become https://wikenigma.org.uk/info/notes_for_contributors/become

mdp2021 4y ago
Interestingly, "wiki" means (in Hawaiian) "fast" (used by Ward Cunningham in '95 for "very fast web"). So, no, the process may not be fast. But in topics like "the best competitive sports club in the world", some may prefer to keep intervention more controlled, depending on the general intention.
- agucova 4y ago
  More recently, "wiki" seems to be a more concrete concept: a collaboratively edited website, managed by its audience [1]. The project references Wikipedia as an inspiration, and I hope it can live up to similar ideals. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wiki https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wiki
  - mdp2021 4y ago
    > collaboratively edited website Yes, but there are parts of it in terminology awareness gone slightly messy: in 'wikipedia', the educational part is in '-poedia' ("children", hence "learners"); 'wiki-' reflects the concept that the operation on the content must be apt to be quick - which is exactly the direct interpretation that appears in your parent post («a contact form just to edit an article doesn't really live up to the “wiki” part»). "Quick" there is not just "free of red tape": I understand the first idea of Cunningham was about distributed access to a relational database for collaborative editing, in the simplest and directmost possible way. So, 'wiki-' in the current common use could be more like the truncation of 'wikiweb' (already containing interesting convergences of meaning in "web" as "collaboration", not just "network of frontends"). "Wiki-" per se would indicate more the "hassle free" side of the technology.
    - nl 4y ago
      Ward Cunningham's wiki at c2.com was a simple user editable wiki: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/WikiWikiWeb https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/WikiWikiWeb I don't know what all your linguistics analysis is trying to achieve other than disguise the fact that this isn't a wiki.
      - mdp2021 4y ago
        > trying to achieve Intellectual curiosity, applied to the care of ideas. «Disguise»: I have no idea what you are talking about. My only interest on whether the submitted site falls into the category of "wiki" can be linguistic - not about the site itself (of interest respectfully relative).
    - zvr 4y ago
      Sorry, but the second part, "-pedia" comes from "παιδεία", (all-around) education, not "children".
      - mdp2021 4y ago
        It's the same :) 'paideia', "education", comes from 'pais', "child" - as I wrote, «"children", hence "learners"» (...«the educational part»). (Note: as I was checking the spelling of 'paedia', see edit below, the statement of pais→paideia also came out in the search results, from wiktionary.org . I suppose it must be quite uncontroversial.) I suspect that with that '«all-around»' you refer to the left part of 'encyclopedia' as 'enkyklios paideia', "encompassing education". Edit: but I see, re-reading the post, that I wrote 'poedia' instead of 'paedia'. (I think I am making at least a typo per post in these days. Maybe when the temperatures will return in the 20's...)
- Agamus 4y ago
  I manage a small wiki, and would never just open it up to the bots. But fast is relative, no? E.g., I still use snail mail extensively to keep in touch with my friends.
willcipriano 4y ago
Probably to prevent spam, without a community of moderators and tools it would be unworkable for them most likely.
- nibbleshifter 4y ago
  Quite a number of webforums have had to adopt this (request account) process due to insane levels of SEO spam overwhelming mods.
operator-name 4y ago
In my mind there's nothing about locking editing behind account creation that would discount this in being a wiki.
- teawrecks 4y ago
  Only because the wikimedia foundation isn't taking people to court over the trademark. But their original vision was/is a website that is freely editable by the audience.
  - quesera 4y ago
    Not sure what you're getting at. Wikimedia Foundation did not invent the word "wiki". They were not the first to apply the word to a collaboratively edited web page. And they do not assert rights to any words that would conflict with "Wikenigma". https://foundation.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_trademarks https://foundation.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_trademarks
  - Marazan 4y ago
    Wikimedia didn't invent wikis. In fact wikipedia has many festures that are completely against the ethos of the first wiki.

mdp2021 4y ago

Interestingly, "wiki" means (in Hawaiian) "fast" (used by Ward Cunningham in '95 for "very fast web"). So, no, the process may not be fast. But in topics like "the best competitive sports club in the world", some may prefer to keep intervention more controlled, depending on the general intention.

agucova 4y ago
More recently, "wiki" seems to be a more concrete concept: a collaboratively edited website, managed by its audience [1]. The project references Wikipedia as an inspiration, and I hope it can live up to similar ideals. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wiki https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wiki
- mdp2021 4y ago
  > collaboratively edited website Yes, but there are parts of it in terminology awareness gone slightly messy: in 'wikipedia', the educational part is in '-poedia' ("children", hence "learners"); 'wiki-' reflects the concept that the operation on the content must be apt to be quick - which is exactly the direct interpretation that appears in your parent post («a contact form just to edit an article doesn't really live up to the “wiki” part»). "Quick" there is not just "free of red tape": I understand the first idea of Cunningham was about distributed access to a relational database for collaborative editing, in the simplest and directmost possible way. So, 'wiki-' in the current common use could be more like the truncation of 'wikiweb' (already containing interesting convergences of meaning in "web" as "collaboration", not just "network of frontends"). "Wiki-" per se would indicate more the "hassle free" side of the technology.
  - nl 4y ago
    Ward Cunningham's wiki at c2.com was a simple user editable wiki: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/WikiWikiWeb https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/WikiWikiWeb I don't know what all your linguistics analysis is trying to achieve other than disguise the fact that this isn't a wiki.
    - mdp2021 4y ago
      > trying to achieve Intellectual curiosity, applied to the care of ideas. «Disguise»: I have no idea what you are talking about. My only interest on whether the submitted site falls into the category of "wiki" can be linguistic - not about the site itself (of interest respectfully relative).
  - zvr 4y ago
    Sorry, but the second part, "-pedia" comes from "παιδεία", (all-around) education, not "children".
    - mdp2021 4y ago
      It's the same :) 'paideia', "education", comes from 'pais', "child" - as I wrote, «"children", hence "learners"» (...«the educational part»). (Note: as I was checking the spelling of 'paedia', see edit below, the statement of pais→paideia also came out in the search results, from wiktionary.org . I suppose it must be quite uncontroversial.) I suspect that with that '«all-around»' you refer to the left part of 'encyclopedia' as 'enkyklios paideia', "encompassing education". Edit: but I see, re-reading the post, that I wrote 'poedia' instead of 'paedia'. (I think I am making at least a typo per post in these days. Maybe when the temperatures will return in the 20's...)
Agamus 4y ago
I manage a small wiki, and would never just open it up to the bots. But fast is relative, no? E.g., I still use snail mail extensively to keep in touch with my friends.

willcipriano 4y ago

Probably to prevent spam, without a community of moderators and tools it would be unworkable for them most likely.

nibbleshifter 4y ago
Quite a number of webforums have had to adopt this (request account) process due to insane levels of SEO spam overwhelming mods.

operator-name 4y ago

In my mind there's nothing about locking editing behind account creation that would discount this in being a wiki.

teawrecks 4y ago
Only because the wikimedia foundation isn't taking people to court over the trademark. But their original vision was/is a website that is freely editable by the audience.
- quesera 4y ago
  Not sure what you're getting at. Wikimedia Foundation did not invent the word "wiki". They were not the first to apply the word to a collaboratively edited web page. And they do not assert rights to any words that would conflict with "Wikenigma". https://foundation.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_trademarks https://foundation.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_trademarks
- Marazan 4y ago
  Wikimedia didn't invent wikis. In fact wikipedia has many festures that are completely against the ethos of the first wiki.