And covering both sides of issues like:
I still don't understand the motivation behind this. The "new" SPA is bizarrely unperformant and inelegant. Unnecessary too, since the wiki just serves a bunch of unstyled HTML boilerplate. What was the idea here?
> But there is one thing about the wiki that he regrets. "I always felt bad that I owned all those pages," he says. The central idea of a wiki – whether it's driving Wikipedia or C2 – is that anyone can add or edit a page, but those pages all live on servers that someone else owns and controls. Cunningham now believes that no one should have that sort of central control, so he has built something called the federated wiki.
So, in short, the point is decentralization, so the Wiki belongs to the people and not be under any one entity's control.
Can't find the post, but someone in the indiewebcamp community had a reflection on how so much of our contributive information gets pushed into comments now, instead of direct contributions of information. There's seemingly a chasm between very large wiki sites like Wikipedia (where the there's more resistance in the contribution process in the form of editing guide), and Personal documentation tools (traditional blogging, gdocs/quip/etc., notetaking platforms like evernote/etc.)
I see that the bird lovers have finally conquered the Feral_cat page on wikipedia. That took some doing. The obsessed cat crazies used to really guard that page.
A decade or two ago, wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales had to step in to handle pedophilia-related pages that were being guarded by sympathetic editors.
Most companies will guard pages related to them. Whole countries will even do this.
Of course this is a one sided perspective. Growing up in Sweden I was introduced to the concept by susning.nu. Which is also mentioned on that same page.
For a while it was a concept to look up things on susning. Just like googling.
"Skaffa en susning" is an old swedish saying that means "get a clue", "educate yourself".
I loved the site so much I used to spam it on every blog as a 'personal website' to promote it ..
Somewhat off-topic but also eye-opening to me was this:
It was weird how shared content (what we think of as a wiki today) and discussion ("talk" pages on wikipedia) were all mixed together, and it somehow worked. The only Wiki I use these days that still does this is EmacsWiki. Google Wave felt like this in reverse, starting with discussion as default but you could edit everything into a document.
Also: hi Sunir!
I still think the best I have ever written or contributed was from editing discussions over time into content. Slowly.
I still use those skills. I just edited a Slack Q&A into a checklist on launching partnership integrations. The difference is I don’t write in the “WikiNow” any more because no one understands it except what someone once pejoratively called “wiki monks”. :)
- Vigorous and fruitful discussion of current programming and SW engineering trends
It once was at , but that link has long gone.  still links to it.
I don’t see many wikis that are really suitable for this, and none that have widespread adoption.
Does everybody just throw stuff in Slack and hope they can find it with the search function?
I guess I’ll have to look into it. Couldn’t quite see how it differs from Evernote (which in my few has a lot of features missing which teams might need).
I’ve experimented with both wikis and GitLab Pages hosted static sites with large technical teams (hundreds of contributors). The WYSIWYG editing of MediaWiki still gives it an edge, especially for teams with non-software disciplines. MediaWiki also has various features for “gardening” wiki content.
it's like http://harmful.cat-v.org but saner
Enabling JS and 'none' styling the offending elements via CSS ... solves at least one problem.