4 ms·

I still toss wiki a few bucks now and then (even though I hear they are flush with cash and have been for a while) just because I use and enjoy it so frequently

I still toss wiki a few bucks now and then (even though I hear they are flush with cash and have been for a while) just because I use and enjoy it so frequently (and because I think it's a valuable source of information for everyone, generally), but I too have started giving more to the Internet Archive. Its founder Brewster Kahle is a wonderful person. Some choice excerpts from from his wiki: "Struck by the immensity of the task being undertaken and achieved: to store and index everything that was on the Web, Kahle states: 'I was standing there, looking at this machine that was the size of five or six Coke machines, and there was an 'aha' moment that said, 'You can do everything.'" "Knowledge lives in lots of different forms over time," Kahle said in 2011. "First it was in people's memories, then it was in manuscripts, then printed books, then microfilm, CD-ROMs, now on the digital internet. Each one of these generations is very important." "It's not that expensive. For the cost of 60 miles of highway, we can have a 10 million-book digital library available to a generation that is growing up reading on-screen. Our job is to put the best works of humankind within reach of that generation."

cxr 4y ago
> I still toss wiki a few bucks now and then A small favor to ask: can you avoid using the word "wiki" as casual shorthand to refer to Wikipedia? It falls in the same territory (or nearby, at least) as someone who doesn't know better saying "Java" to refer to JS (JavaScript). NB: I have tried to word this as politely and non-derisively as I can think to. If you have any improvements, please let me know. PS: Thank you for 1. your support of Wikipedia, 2. your support of the Internet Archive, and 3. the signal that you send by pulling back from #1 right now, when it makes a lot of sense to do so.
- jazzyjackson 4y ago
  this is like asking me not to call the encyclopedia britannica "the encyclopedia" since there are many other encyclopedias in existence sure wikipedia is one wiki, but there's nothing ambiguous about "look it up on the wiki" edit: lol ok fine I'm wrong, let me amend to, "wiki is an easily disambiguated term depending on the context of the subject, and if the subject is not your internal work project or self hosted fan site, you probably want to look it up on wikipedia.org"
  - dmonitor 4y ago
    >there's nothing ambiguous about "look it up on the wiki" When someone says "look it up on the wiki" I assume they refer to a wiki specific to the topic at hand.
    - groestl 4y ago
      Which will prompt me to ask: what wiki?
  - chungy 4y ago
    > this is like asking me not to call the encyclopedia britannica "the encyclopedia" since there are many other encyclopedias in existence If you have a physical set and it's the only encyclopedia in the house, it might be fair. I've never heard anyone generically refer to Encyclopedia Britannica as simply "the encyclopedia" outside of this circumstance. > sure wikipedia is one wiki, but there's nothing ambiguous about "look it up on the wiki" Hard disagree. With thousands of specialized wikis and in-house corporate wikis, it can never really be assumed to mean Wikipedia specifically, unless you're already on Wikipedia.
  - lkrubner 4y ago
    "but there's nothing ambiguous about "look it up on the wiki" That is ambiguous. I would assume you were running a personal wiki project, and you meant that, or you meant the wiki at your place of work. This isn't like "flexing on the Gram" -- most people don't run a personal Instagram, so if you're flexing on the gram, as the rap lyrics say, then I can guess what you mean. But most of us use wikis at work, so we all deal with a large number of wikis, so simply saying "wiki" is ambiguous.
- amelius 4y ago
  Note that when you add "wiki" to a query on Google, you typically get a Wikipedia link first.
  - philwelch 4y ago
    Depends on the query. The top result for “Star Trek wiki” is Memory Alpha, which is the Star Trek wiki. “Crusader Kings wiki” returns the official CK3 wiki, followed by the CK2 wiki, followed by a Wikipedia link. If you Google things that don’t have their own wiki, though, you do tend to get Wikipedia.
- Maursault 4y ago
  > It falls in the same territory (or nearby, at least) as someone who doesn't know better saying "Java" to refer to JS (JavaScript). I don't mean to offend you, but this is a poor analogy. Java and JavaScript are hardly related, the former a programming language developed by Sun employees and first implemented by Sun, and while the latter did involve collaboration with Sun by Netscape and used Java-like syntax, the JS name is more marketing than having any relation to Java. But more importantly, neither is a type of the other. "Wikipedia" is a portmanteau of wiki and encyclopedia, and Wikipedia is, in fact, both of these things and the most well known, the largest and by far the most used implementation of wiki[1] ever. > can you avoid using the word "wiki" as casual shorthand to refer to Wikipedia? It's really ok that nearly everyone does this, and what you're asking is like asking New York Times employees to stop calling nytimes.com "the website." I would not be surprised if 99.9% of all wiki implementation ever is actually Wikipedia, iow, there are lots of wikis, but most of them, by volume, are Wikipedia. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wiki https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wiki
  - mgdlbp 4y ago
    [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:NOTWIKI https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:NOTWIKI "Tree's leaves are turning pretty colors. I think Tree looks nice today."
    - Maursault 4y ago
      Please cease referring to your vehicle as "the car," or "my truck." It has a make and model and it is not all cars or all trucks. Also, when speaking of air travel, do not refer to this transportation as "a plane," nor "the plane," but instead, for example, "Boeing 737 Flight xyz." Do not ever, ever say you are taking a train, cab, uber, or bus. Do not ever go "home" again. There are lots of homes. Be specific, as continuing to speak this way is inaccurate, ambiguous, grammatically incorrect and confusing.
      - cxr 4y ago
        This comment is full of false equivalences. In fact, it contains only false equivalences. What you just wrote is a decent argument against anyone taking issue with someone saying "the wiki" or even "my/our wiki" where it makes sense to. With respect to the topic at hand, however, that makes it a total strawman, because no one is taking issue with those things. Shortening "Wikipedia" to "wiki" is nothing like exercising the grammar of the English language to construct ordinary sentences involving "the bus" or "my truck". Please don't make bad faith arguments like this. It stands out especially when it comes from someone who's first remarks were an objection to the Java/JS example on the grounds of category error. Shortening "Wikipedia" to "wiki" would be like shortening "Burger King" to "burger".* It shouldn't be done, and it shouldn't be controversial to bring it up. It was a polite request, after all. * or if that example bothers you, shortening "Taco Shack" to "shack", to use an example that will withstand any criticism that Burger King is not a burger, whereas Wikipedia is a wiki—which (again) doesn't even matter in this case, since we're not claiming any faux pas over the appropriate use of "a wiki" or "the wiki" or "our wiki" or "some wiki", etc.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]

cxr 4y ago

> I still toss wiki a few bucks now and then A small favor to ask: can you avoid using the word "wiki" as casual shorthand to refer to Wikipedia? It falls in the same territory (or nearby, at least) as someone who doesn't know better saying "Java" to refer to JS (JavaScript). NB: I have tried to word this as politely and non-derisively as I can think to. If you have any improvements, please let me know. PS: Thank you for 1. your support of Wikipedia, 2. your support of the Internet Archive, and 3. the signal that you send by pulling back from #1 right now, when it makes a lot of sense to do so.

jazzyjackson 4y ago
this is like asking me not to call the encyclopedia britannica "the encyclopedia" since there are many other encyclopedias in existence sure wikipedia is one wiki, but there's nothing ambiguous about "look it up on the wiki" edit: lol ok fine I'm wrong, let me amend to, "wiki is an easily disambiguated term depending on the context of the subject, and if the subject is not your internal work project or self hosted fan site, you probably want to look it up on wikipedia.org"
- dmonitor 4y ago
  >there's nothing ambiguous about "look it up on the wiki" When someone says "look it up on the wiki" I assume they refer to a wiki specific to the topic at hand.
  - groestl 4y ago
    Which will prompt me to ask: what wiki?
- chungy 4y ago
  > this is like asking me not to call the encyclopedia britannica "the encyclopedia" since there are many other encyclopedias in existence If you have a physical set and it's the only encyclopedia in the house, it might be fair. I've never heard anyone generically refer to Encyclopedia Britannica as simply "the encyclopedia" outside of this circumstance. > sure wikipedia is one wiki, but there's nothing ambiguous about "look it up on the wiki" Hard disagree. With thousands of specialized wikis and in-house corporate wikis, it can never really be assumed to mean Wikipedia specifically, unless you're already on Wikipedia.
- lkrubner 4y ago
  "but there's nothing ambiguous about "look it up on the wiki" That is ambiguous. I would assume you were running a personal wiki project, and you meant that, or you meant the wiki at your place of work. This isn't like "flexing on the Gram" -- most people don't run a personal Instagram, so if you're flexing on the gram, as the rap lyrics say, then I can guess what you mean. But most of us use wikis at work, so we all deal with a large number of wikis, so simply saying "wiki" is ambiguous.
amelius 4y ago
Note that when you add "wiki" to a query on Google, you typically get a Wikipedia link first.
- philwelch 4y ago
  Depends on the query. The top result for “Star Trek wiki” is Memory Alpha, which is the Star Trek wiki. “Crusader Kings wiki” returns the official CK3 wiki, followed by the CK2 wiki, followed by a Wikipedia link. If you Google things that don’t have their own wiki, though, you do tend to get Wikipedia.
Maursault 4y ago
> It falls in the same territory (or nearby, at least) as someone who doesn't know better saying "Java" to refer to JS (JavaScript). I don't mean to offend you, but this is a poor analogy. Java and JavaScript are hardly related, the former a programming language developed by Sun employees and first implemented by Sun, and while the latter did involve collaboration with Sun by Netscape and used Java-like syntax, the JS name is more marketing than having any relation to Java. But more importantly, neither is a type of the other. "Wikipedia" is a portmanteau of wiki and encyclopedia, and Wikipedia is, in fact, both of these things and the most well known, the largest and by far the most used implementation of wiki[1] ever. > can you avoid using the word "wiki" as casual shorthand to refer to Wikipedia? It's really ok that nearly everyone does this, and what you're asking is like asking New York Times employees to stop calling nytimes.com "the website." I would not be surprised if 99.9% of all wiki implementation ever is actually Wikipedia, iow, there are lots of wikis, but most of them, by volume, are Wikipedia. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wiki https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wiki
- mgdlbp 4y ago
  [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:NOTWIKI https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:NOTWIKI "Tree's leaves are turning pretty colors. I think Tree looks nice today."
  - Maursault 4y ago
    Please cease referring to your vehicle as "the car," or "my truck." It has a make and model and it is not all cars or all trucks. Also, when speaking of air travel, do not refer to this transportation as "a plane," nor "the plane," but instead, for example, "Boeing 737 Flight xyz." Do not ever, ever say you are taking a train, cab, uber, or bus. Do not ever go "home" again. There are lots of homes. Be specific, as continuing to speak this way is inaccurate, ambiguous, grammatically incorrect and confusing.
    - cxr 4y ago
      This comment is full of false equivalences. In fact, it contains only false equivalences. What you just wrote is a decent argument against anyone taking issue with someone saying "the wiki" or even "my/our wiki" where it makes sense to. With respect to the topic at hand, however, that makes it a total strawman, because no one is taking issue with those things. Shortening "Wikipedia" to "wiki" is nothing like exercising the grammar of the English language to construct ordinary sentences involving "the bus" or "my truck". Please don't make bad faith arguments like this. It stands out especially when it comes from someone who's first remarks were an objection to the Java/JS example on the grounds of category error. Shortening "Wikipedia" to "wiki" would be like shortening "Burger King" to "burger".* It shouldn't be done, and it shouldn't be controversial to bring it up. It was a polite request, after all. * or if that example bothers you, shortening "Taco Shack" to "shack", to use an example that will withstand any criticism that Burger King is not a burger, whereas Wikipedia is a wiki—which (again) doesn't even matter in this case, since we're not claiming any faux pas over the appropriate use of "a wiki" or "the wiki" or "our wiki" or "some wiki", etc.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]