
C2 wiki closed for remodeling - weinzierl
http://c2.com/wiki/closed.html?WelcomeVisitors
======
Camillo
The (baffling) explanation given is that Ward Cunningham has one computer, and
serving the wiki from it made it slow for other work:

    
    
        So why close? It gives me room to work. The continuous scraping bumps up
        against my web throttling making all other web services useless. Even
        shell is painfully slow.
    

The other work seems to be the conversion of the original wiki into a
federated wiki. The page meanders through a confusing explanation which
probably makes sense if you know the history of that particular project, but
the ultimate result seems to be the same: "If you want to help. Learn some
federated wiki."

So I guess another reason for closing the old wiki could be to take advantage
of the news this generate to recruit people for this (new? old?) conversion
effort.

~~~
superkuh
Running a web server on your home machine is the best way to be part of the
internet rather than a consumer of services provided by corporations over the
internet.

It does sound like he needs a better QoS or bandwidth limiting mechanism
though.

~~~
dredmorbius
Or a second box.

Running public services on my personal server ... is very old-school, but it
gives me the heeby geebies to think of doing it now.

Hardware is cheap cheap cheap. The major cost is in administering it.

~~~
Asooka
Or, I don't know, a second box on a second ISP line. That's what I do, but
then again I live in a place where an internet connection with a static public
IP address and several megabytes bw both ways is like 15$/mo (unlimited, of
course).

~~~
dredmorbius
Keep in mind that for residential cable or DSL service, a given neighbourhood
is very likely within a single circuit, and is subject to congestion from
nearby connections (subject to their own caps). So a second line might not be
quite so useful as all that, though it's almost certainly worth looking into.

Multi-homing onto fully independent networks could be quite useful.

------
nchelluri
> Smallest Federated Wiki is a software platform developed by Ward Cunningham
> which adds forking features found in software development tools like GitHub
> to wikis.[1] The project was launched at IndieWebCamp 2011.[2] The software
> allows its users to fork wiki pages, maintaining their own copies.

>

> Federation supports what Cunningham has described as "a chorus of voices"
> where users share content but maintain their individual perspectives.[3]
> This approach contrasts with the tendency of centralized wikis such as
> Wikipedia to function as consensus engines.[4]

\-
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smallest_Federated_Wiki](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smallest_Federated_Wiki)

In short I guess if I disagree with a page instead of editing it and starting
an edit-war I can fork it.

~~~
duskwuff
> In short I guess if I disagree with a page instead of editing it and
> starting an edit-war I can fork it.

Which I'd expect to lead to less of a "chorus" and more of a _cacophony_ of
voices as every disputed change, every contentious rewrite, leads to another
fork of the original.

Merging software branches can be hard enough. Merging "forks" of English text
is horrendous, and gets worse the further the forks are from each other.
There's a good reason why no commonly used wiki software has this
functionality: it's completely impractical to use.

~~~
int_19h
Software doesn't stay forked all that long in practice, usually, because
_maintaining_ your fork is much more effort than creating it, and making your
popular is more effort still.

I would expect the same dynamics to be true here - yes, there will be plenty
of short-lived forks, but hardly anyone will actually notice them; and
community will effectively "bless" one fork, or maybe a few major forks for
particularly debated issues, as the official one, and that's what most people
will see, and where most activity will take place.

------
weinzierl
In short: In the post Ward Cunningham says the C2 wiki will be converted into
a federated wiki form. I think the following quote summarizes well why he
thinks this is a good idea:

    
    
        So why close? It gives me room to work. The continuous 
        scraping bumps up against my web throttling making all 
        other web services useless. Even shell is painfully 
        slow.
    
        Of course I live in a world of many options. I could be 
        stalled just reviewing choices. Instead I build on 
        what I've learned from federated wiki so as to preserve 
        the original wiki in a form that can be appreciated for 
        what it has been and will ever be. If you want to help. 
        Learn some federated wiki. Then email me.

------
tome
I love the C2 wiki and learned a lot from it. This seems a bit incoherent
though. What's actually going on? None of it makes any sense.

~~~
akavel
Why? I don't see any problem, the message seems quite clear; wikis (similar to
forums) are hard to maintain (spam, server load & costs); new inventions are
hard to promote (federated wiki mentioned in the post); and maintenance work
on hobby projects is gruesome and taxing (thus any chance at getting some
leeway by any means available is invaluable).

~~~
ptero
Would not it be better, as an interim state, to freeze the current content and
provide it as static pages, likely with minimal server load.

~~~
inimino
Thus turning the original wiki into something non-editable? If it can't be
maintained as a wiki, the experiment is already over, right? Ward Cunningham
isn't under any obligation to provide static archives, and these already exist
elsewhere.

Edit: turns out this was already the case. What I really want to say is that
we should respect Ward Cunningham's choices in maintaining the site how he
wants, in whatever way works for him.

~~~
dpark
> _we should respect Ward Cunningham 's choices in maintaining the site how he
> wants, in whatever way works for him_

This is an unhealthy attitude and I'm continually surprised that people say
things like this. Having respect for someone does not mean that they are above
criticism. It doesn't mean silent obedience. You can respect someone and
_still_ say, "hey, this thing you're doing is a bad idea."

~~~
inimino
Where did I say "above criticism" and what does "obedience" have to do with
this? (Is Mr. Cunningham bossing you around?)

The attitude that actually is unhealthy is when someone graciously provides a
service to the community for years, and then stops doing that, and people
whine as though they are entitled to the continuation of that service.

Respect in cases like this should mean to appreciate the work done to keep the
thing running until now, and if someone decides to stop doing that work,
respect that choice, even if you don't understand it or agree with it.

~~~
dpark
You very much stated and continue to state that no one should complain about
Cunningham's choice here out of respect. This absolutely implies that his
action is above criticism and that the appropriate response is to remain
silent. This is painfully obvious from your last line. You say "respect that
choice" and clearly mean "accept it and shut up".

I don't think it counts as "whining" to ask if there is another way (e.g.
switch to static content) to address Cunningham's concerns/costs without
outright taking the wiki down.

In no way do I think Cunningham owes the community continued indefinite
hosting of the wiki. At the same time, its removal _is_ a loss to the
community and it's unsurprising that some would ask if this could be handled
differently.

~~~
wpietri
> This absolutely implies that his action is above criticism and that the
> appropriate response is to remain silent.

It does not. An alternative explanation: We recognize him as an autonomous
adult who does not owe us anything. We trust that if he wants our advice, he
will ask us for it.

Ward Cunningham has a long track record of doing very smart things. I met him
a number of times at the early conferences, and he was consistently sharp,
kind, and generous with his time.

To criticize his decisions about what he does with his own stuff is a level of
presumption that I would be unlikely to indulge in. Just because I don't
understand what he's doing doesn't mean he doesn't understand.

~~~
dpark
Does "we respect Ward Cunningham" mean we should sit silently when we disagree
with his decision or not? It's either yes or no and speaking of autonomous
adults and smart things doesn't change that.

Either respect means we shut up when we disagree or it doesn't. You can't
claim that respect _doesn 't_ mean we should shut up and then claim that we
_should_ shut up in this case ... because of our respect for Ward Cunningham.

And I'd like to be super clear that Ward Cunningham doesn't owe me anything
and if he wants to turn off his wiki and burn the archives that's his business
and I actually don't care too much and I wish him all the best regardless.
What I don't like is this frequent assertion that criticizing someone's
actions implies a lack of respect, or conversely that respect implies silence
in the face of disagreement.

~~~
wpietri
You are making a complicated thing into a binary. I'm sure that feels
pleasantly dramatic, but it confuses issues where we need clarity.

If you complain in a way that you are setting yourself up as judge and jury (a
common mode here on HN), then yes, I'd rather you put a sock in it. Ward's a
smart guy, he knows more about the topic than you, and he's spent much more
time thinking about it. Truly respecting that eliminates certain kinds of
critique.

Note that this doesn't stop you from commenting. If you would like to mention
your feelings in non-judgmental ways, that's fine. E.g., "I'm worried: what
will happen to the archives?" Or "I don't understand how he will solve problem
X." It also doesn't prevent you from expressing different values, as long as
you respect his values.

But you are only competent to disagree with his decision once you have as much
information as he does and has put a similar level of thought into it.
Otherwise you're one of those people who froths at a trial outcome without
actually looking at the trial record and carefully reading the judge's
decision. Not all opinions are equally valuable. If I suggest my ignorant
opinion is just as good as somebody else's informed one, I am unavoidably
being disrespectful to them.

~~~
dpark
> _You are making a complicated thing into a binary. I 'm sure that feels
> pleasantly dramatic, but it confuses issues where we need clarity._

I'm happy to recognize the middle ground where someone can effectively just be
whining and have nothing useful to say, and the appropriate thing to do is
just shut up. That middle ground has nothing to do with respect though, which
gets back to my point.

Certainly I agree that the way a concern is voiced has a major impact on how
it will be received.

> _But you are only competent to disagree with his decision once you have as
> much information as he does and has put a similar level of thought into it.
> Otherwise you 're one of those people who froths at a trial outcome without
> actually looking at the trial record and carefully reading the judge's
> decision. Not all opinions are equally valuable. If I suggest my ignorant
> opinion is just as good as somebody else's informed one, I am unavoidably
> being disrespectful to them._

Absolutely not. This is a terribly unhealthy attitude. By this logic, you can
virtually never question someone's choice because you effectively never know
everything that goes into someone else's choice. This is yes man logic that
leads to an echo chamber. Less charitably, this is apologist behavior. This is
the argument put forward to defend every shady government decision in history.
"Oh, you don't have all the information so you can't have an opinion on the
issue."

What you should be doing in a situation where you disagree but don't feel well
informed is to _become_ well informed so that you can either defend your
position or understand the decision.

~~~
wpietri
> That middle ground has nothing to do with respect though, which gets back to
> my point.

I said "complicated". You took that to mean a continuum, but that's not the
case. There is more than one dimension here.

> By this logic, you can virtually never question someone's choice because you
> effectively never know everything that goes into someone else's choice.

You were talking criticism. Here you have shifted ground to questioning. Which
is still a little entitled, honestly. You could ask questions, though.

Also, your parallel to government decisions is ridiculous. Government is of,
by, and for the people. People have a right to know. Ward Cunningham, on the
other hand, is of, by, and for Ward Cunningham. You have no right to get up in
his business.

> What you should be doing in a situation where you disagree but don't feel
> well informed is to become well informed so that you can either defend your
> position or understand the decision.

Yes, and I for one wish you had done that here instead of pitching a fit.

But ultimately, Ward doesn't owe us an explanation. If he chooses to inform
us, that's great. But if not, the respectful thing to do is to, absent
evidence to the contrary, assume he knows what he's doing.

~~~
dpark
> _I said "complicated". You took that to mean a continuum, but that's not the
> case. There is more than one dimension here._

It feels like you're trying really hard to avoid addressing the point
directly. It's really not as complex as you're making it out to be. I
literally posed a yes or no question about the specific example of Ward
Cunningham and somehow it's now a multi-dimensional issue that you've been
unable to answer?

I think your answer is "no" but for some reason you're unwilling to just say
so, which is why you're bringing in other dimensions that are unrelated to
respect in order to try to make the question seem difficult. If you think the
commenters should shut up about Cunningham's actions because you think their
complaints come from a place of ignorance or entitlement, that might be
reasonable, but it's got nothing to do with respect.

> _You were talking criticism. Here you have shifted ground to questioning.
> Which is still a little entitled, honestly. You could ask questions,
> though._

You're trying to nitpick semantics. To question someone's decision is to
criticize it.

> _Also, your parallel to government decisions is ridiculous. Government is
> of, by, and for the people. People have a right to know. Ward Cunningham, on
> the other hand, is of, by, and for Ward Cunningham. You have no right to get
> up in his business._

The government example was provided to illustrate why this mindset is
fundamentally wrong, not to equate government actions and Cunningham's
actions. I could have provided equivalent examples involving business, or
friends, or strangers. But it doesn't matter because you're nitpicking the
example instead of addressing the unhealthiness of the attitude.

> _Yes, and I for one wish you had done that here instead of pitching a fit._

Where do you imagine I pitched a fit? Is criticism something you just
fundamentally don't agree with? My comments here have been polite and, yes,
respectful.

> _But ultimately, Ward doesn 't owe us an explanation. If he chooses to
> inform us, that's great. But if not, the respectful thing to do is to,
> absent evidence to the contrary, assume he knows what he's doing._

I never claimed he did and repeatedly stated that he didn't owe me anything. I
think I made it extremely clear that I was criticizing the comments/attitude
linking respect and silence, and not Cunningham's actions. (I'm not sure why
you're equating whether he owes us something with whether he knows what he's
doing, though. These are unrelated.)

~~~
wpietri
Your yes or no question contains a framing I reject. I will not answer it as
written. If you would like to ask an actual question where you intend to learn
something, I'm glad to take a swing at that. I will not participate, though,
in your rhetorical attempt to prove a point I believe wrong.

> You're trying to nitpick semantics. To question someone's decision is to
> criticize it.

No, criticizing is saying the decision is bad for given reasons. Questioning
it often implies the decision is bad, but needn't. Asking questions is a way
of learning more about the decision. For a given level of knowledge, these
demonstrate different levels of respect.

> it doesn't matter because you're nitpicking the example instead of
> addressing the unhealthiness of the attitude.

Some possible attitudes are unhealthy. But quite a lot of them demonstrate
healthy humility and respect. Your continued insistence on collapsing all
possible attitudes that result in silence into one attitude is the reason we
are not getting anywhere.

> Where do you imagine I pitched a fit?

Right here. Your whole discussion here is you raising a ruckus because you
imagine people must hold an a particular attitude you don't like. They don't,
but you are unwilling to listen.

> I never claimed he did and repeatedly stated that he didn't owe me anything.
> I think I made it extremely clear that I was criticizing the
> comments/attitude linking respect and silence, and not Cunningham's actions.

Either you believe you are entitled to opine vigorously upon decisions you
don't yet understand, or you believe the person you are criticizing is
required to explain their decision to your satisfaction. Otherwise you would
be able to see that not saying anything is a respectful way to deal with a
decision made by someone who has more data than you and has spent longer
thinking about it.

So yes, you have claimed he doesn't owe you anything. But you still act like
he does.

------
PuercoPop
Code and Preview of the wiki rewrite at
[https://github.com/WardCunningham/remodeling](https://github.com/WardCunningham/remodeling)

~~~
Macuyiko
So an Ajax call loading in half a MB of data (names.txt)... This rewrite
really comes of as strange.

------
labster
I was afraid that they'd get taken in by this federated wiki nonsense; I fear
we might have lost one of the greats to second system syndrome.

Federated wiki is a cool idea and all, but I don't want to have to build my
own wiki of everything, or decide what concepts should be included in my own
wiki. The whole strength of wiki to me is that it massively multiplayer user
curated content, where the whole state is determined by everyone working
together. I don't know what happens to that curation if there's no
authoritative source -- it seems like federated wiki isn't really wiki at all,
and is something else entirely.

~~~
TylerE
Has federated anything every really caught on?

~~~
inopinatus
The USA.

~~~
thaumasiotes
There's a pretty pronounced trend in the US to be less federated. For example,
"states' rights" is commonly viewed as a euphemism for "racism".

~~~
inopinatus
I don't necessarily mean the states -> USA relationship. One of the things
I've come to understand, as a regular visitor to the US, is that there's a
community for everybody. No matter how idiosyncratic (or even extreme) your
political, social and economic preferences, you can find a community to take
you in. And if you can't, you can create one and find others of like mind. And
somehow it all still comes under a single umbrella notion of being "American".
This exists practically nowhere else on earth. And I say that as a resident &
citizen of another country that has a federated state structure.

And yes, I know it's a work in progress, and that this hasn't lead to equity
of representation or systemic fairness. But still, in my view, establishing
that framework and unifying _je ne sais quoi_ in the face of such diversity is
the single greatest political accomplishment of the last few hundred years.

------
1057x31337
The part I don't understand is why they would take down a working site. They
should of waited until they were ready to switch over.

~~~
inimino
("should of" should be "should have")

The post explains this. Closing gives space. That could be technical,
psychological, social. Shutting down what's there is cleaner. If you miss it,
this would be a good chance to thank the people who kept it running all this
time.

~~~
1057x31337
Good to know, thanks.

------
Kiro
So what was this?

------
startling
So, where's the content? How many backups are there? How many backups are
offsite? Are any publicly-available?

~~~
memracom
Read the article. Unfortunately the content is looked up in a tangle of
different character encodings and Ward needs to do a lot of work to convert it
all into UTF-8. When that is done, it will all come back, better than before.

~~~
startling
Why does Ward need to do that before putting a tarball up somewhere?

I've seen so many sites cease to exist after undertaking ambitious overhauls
like this.

~~~
csdrane
At the very least, fortunately, archive.org seems to have it.

