5 ms·
It does look like just another bloated SPA, but Federated Wiki was a geniune advance when Ward was developing it a decade ago. Still is. Shame it hasn't caught
by beefman 3y ago
It does look like just another bloated SPA, but Federated Wiki was a geniune advance when Ward was developing it a decade ago. Still is. Shame it hasn't caught on.
I agree it was a mistake to move the existing c2 content into it. Maybe a better try was to start a new wiki of some kind. But the temptation to leverage the existing site to launch Federated Wiki is understandable.
- colonwqbang 3y agoNo offense, but how is it an advance? Who needs a wiki that can't be edited? (If I'm mistaken about this, maybe someone can educate me)
- cratermoon 3y agoThe federated wiki concept is that you run your own wiki, and replicate, or "fork" content from other federated wikis to yours.
- andolanra 3y agoIf you know git: a federated wiki works like that. To make a federated wiki work like a traditional wiki, you can think of there as being a "canonical copy" which you can clone, make edits, and then use a 'pull request' process for incorporating those edits back into the original. But you also don't need to have a single source of truth: you can, for example, have a group of people—say, students studying for a class—who are building their own wikis, and among each other they can copy in pages, make changes, copy changes back, and so forth, all building a web of things. In the same way that git can replicate a subversion-like workflow but also introduces the possibility of different workflows, a federated wiki can replicate a traditional wiki but also has a number of workflows it can accomplish.
- colonwqbang 3y agoThanks! I'm aware of the abstract technical idea, but is there any evidence that Ward's wiki ever worked like that? Did he ever accept a "pull request" or are there any notable forks which do?