4 ms·

I've been thinking about something in this space, actually... it feels like this is much more a UX/social problem -- in that a wiki can very much be modeled as

by tekne 5mo ago

I've been thinking about something in this space, actually... it feels like this is much more a UX/social problem -- in that a wiki can very much be modeled as a repo with a very permissive auto-merge bot (e.g. if PR only touches unprotected pages and user is registered, allow merge)

pwdisswordfishs 5mo ago
> it feels like this is much more a UX/social problem It's not merely "like" that. That's what it is. "Wiki" comes from the Hawaiian work for "quick". You spot an error, you click the button to change it, and the change is made. That's wiki. "Open a pull request and get it approved" is not wiki. It's what the default collaboration model was before wikis and exactly why the wiki was invented (to replace it).
- tekne 5mo ago
  If the PR automatically gets approved (given checks) then pushing the merge button is just going from draft to published. Being able to work on a draft without publishing, and incorporate changes (i.e. rebasing) should make your life easier not harder.