On this page... (hide)
- What? Not another wiki-theorist?
- Truth, what is that? or Holmes and Aaron in conversation
- To what extent can wiki be gossip?
- Thoughts on Markup
- small random bits
- Wiki trouble, the trouble with wiki, etc.
- Wikipedia Culture
- wiki blobbing or WikiLog or WikiWebLog ot Bliki or BliKi (or whatEVer)
- See Also
- Category tags
- Add Comment
Mostly these are notes I am thinking about, or would like to reference again as I discuss why wikis are useful or interesting.
hey, I like wikis -- otherwise I wouldn’t be using one as my CMS. Is that a perversion?
“unregulated networks of communication”
Wikipedia starts out pretty uncharitably:
Siva Vaidhyanathan’s The Anarchist in the Library touches on gossip as (verbal?) communication outside the approved channels of discourse (“unregulated networks of communication”), and highlights how important gossip was to the French Revolution
HTML itself is not a sufficient markup in many cases - it’s big and bulky. The allure of wikitext is that it’s simplified - it’s Quick (wiki = fast) and provides advanced functionality that stock HTML doesn’t - the thing is, HTML isn’t intended nor was it designed for this type of functionality. You don’t want to force users to choose between no advanced format tweaking (wikitext) or having to know HTML.
This is not a simple decision to make. Considering the widespread use - beyond technology people - of Wikipedia, I’d say that WikiText is not a hindrance to regular users. A knee-jerk reaction to kill it might actually kill the usefulness of the Wiki platform.
Meatball:WysiwygWiki discusses visual editing
I’ve looked into blog-enhancements for pmwiki, but never felt as comfortable with them as wordpress.
I have a wordpress blog, and a wiki, and I can’t resolve what content should be placed where.
I started on a wordpress plugin to use the wiki-engine for rendering markup -- which also allows wiki-includes -- but it’s not complete, and the style-differences and lack of js-portability between the two is a big PITA.
How to Use Wikipedia as a Teaching Tool: Adrianne Wadewitz
EmacsWiki vs WikEmacs or [S]tewarding documentation projects and nurturing a healthy community around them is much harder than writing software.
BoingBoingBoing: What Wikipedia’s new flagged revisions system actually means (2009)
Making Light has regular run-ins with wikipedia.
The first I remember reading was http://nielsenhayden.com/makinglight/archives/009274.html from August 13, 2007
There’s something I’m looking for, where (I think it’s Making Light) where somebody ‘splains that the person who wins edit wars is the one with the most perseverance. Who is usually an asshole.
I haven’t found that back yet (if it even exists). But just found this new comment:
Many, if not most, of the links below are specific to Wikipedia. There’s general theory to be gained from them. But once that’s done (or possibly before?) they should be moved to a generic page on WikiPedia.
Link dump follows:
Deletionism and inclusionism are opposing philosophies that largely developed and came to public notice within the context of the community of editors of the online encyclopedia Wikipedia. The terms are connected to views on the appropriate scope of the encyclopedia, and the appropriate point for a topic to be allowed to “include” an encyclopedia article (i.e., “inclusion”) or “delete” the article (i.e., “deletion”). Inclusionism and deletionism are broad terms falling within a spectrum of views. The concepts are closely related to the concept of notability, with deletionists and inclusionists taking a strong or relaxed stance on “notability” accordingly. Many users do not identify strongly with either position.
“Deletionists” are proponents of selective coverage and removal of articles seen as unnecessary or highly substandard. Deletionist viewpoints are commonly motivated by a desire that Wikipedia be focused on and cover significant topics – along with the desire to place a firm cap upon proliferation of promotional use (seen as abuse of the website), trivia, and articles which are of no general interest, lack suitable source material for high quality coverage, or are too short or otherwise unacceptably poor in quality.
“Inclusionists” are proponents of broad retention, including retention of “harmless” articles and articles otherwise deemed substandard to allow for future improvement. Inclusionist viewpoints are commonly motivated by a desire to keep Wikipedia broad in coverage with a much lower entry barrier for topics covered – along with the belief in that it is impossible to tell what knowledge might be “useful” or productive, that content often starts poor and is improved if time is allowed, that there is effectively no incremental cost of coverage, that arbitrary lines in the sand are unhelpful and may prove divisive, and that goodwill requires avoiding arbitrary deletion of others’ work. Some extend this to include allowing a wider range of sources such as notable blogs and other websites.
Coding horror on Wikipedia: Inclusionists vs. Deletionists (2006)
blog entry on debate - including a reference to two opposing associations: Association of Inclusionist Wikipedians (AIW) (which has some interesting inter-related illustrations) and Association of Deletionist Wikipedians (ADW) (which has some interesting, but disparate, illustrations). Judging by design sense alone, the Inclusionists win this debate, as the deletionists appear to have no sense of style. The proposed logos for the ADW are cluttered, verbose, busy -- and seemingly promote the opposite of a deletionist spirit; conversely, the AIW logo is simple, calm, and serene. Almost as though, by not worrying about what should be thrown out, they have reached a zen point of being able to find what they need, focusing on information, and not curation.
Wiki - notes on specific Wiki platforms, books, etc.
DeletionismVsInclusionism (most relevant chunk included above as Wikipedia Culture)
http://wikipediocracy.com/ - We exist to shine the light of scrutiny into the dark crevices of Wikipedia and its related projects; to examine the corruption there, along with its structural flaws; and to inoculate the unsuspecting public against the torrent of misinformation, defamation, and general nonsense that issues forth from one of the world’s most frequently visited websites, the “encyclopedia that anyone can edit.”