Having no kind of gatekeeping or moderation whatsoever before changes are published seems like a fantasy of another age. Nowadays, the wiki would be co-opted by some type of spam or malicious activity basically instantly.
It wasn't a fantasy, but it does belong to another age. The Internet was small back then and a much higher trust society. Today it's a war zone and everything must be locked down.
I didn't suggest no gatekeeping or moderation whatsoever. I explicitly qualified 'gatekeeping' with the word 'pre-emptive'.
A wiki allows anyone to edit by default and their changes are deployed without verification by another user. Moderation takes the form of locking specific pages on a case-by-case basis to users with tenure (who can still edit instantly) and rolling back misguided changes.
There's nothing wrong with having a site that isn't a wiki, but this is just a static site maintained by one person, so calling it a wiki is odd.
