I actually held a presentation on wiki technology for one of my local
linux usergroups.
http://jrandomhacker.info/mw/index.php/Seeing_the_true_value_of_the_wiki
I will also add that wiki technology represents a solution to every
hobbiest's problems from an angle which is different from the
solutions of other technologies.
I see great hope in the wiki-style of doing things. Web-editable
everything is a wonderful idea, and I'd love to be able to (securely!)
edit my php.ini, fstab, lilo.conf or other files through a web
interface. Imagine how a firewall or good printer's settings are
changed .. through a web interface. Wikis are not new, they are an
extension of proved ideas but somehow corrupted into a very frail
solution.
Well.. I'm droning on.
I love rambling on about this sort of stuff.
On 6/29/05, Paul Hanchett
<paul.hanchett-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Thank you sy!
>
>
> Sy wrote:
> On 6/22/05, PAUL HANCHETT <paulha-/CzTsIfkJEdBDgjK7y7TUQ@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> wrote:
>
>
> I see the possibilities, but it seems to me like we are creating another
> arcane language that is less capable and no easier to master than the HTML
> to do the same job. It feels to me like we are focusing on refining the
> details without considering the end goal of the user.
>
> Obviously we feel the user will want to format their document, but why have
> they "hired" a wiki to do the job? What problem is the user trying to
> solve? Here are some (incomplete) thoughts that I have:
>
>
> Communicate information to a wider audience
> "Living" documents that many can touch
> Low learning curve-- easy to start using (for users) But this is really an
> attribute that makes the product suitable for hiring, not a job.
> For now, I want to stop here and see what other jobs a wiki may be hired
> for.
>
> Paul
>
>
> The word "wiki" means fast or quick in native Hawiian (U.S.A.). A
> wiki's first and most important quality is the rapid commitment of
> notes. Edit, type, save.
>
> The second feature all wikis share is the ease of which one can link
> to a document. Remembering the location in a directory tree is not
> required. <A HREF="/foo/bar/quux.html">link</A> versus
> [[quux]] is a
> very big time-saver and shapes the way an author thinks.
>
> The third feature of all wikis is the collaboration on documents.
> Although this is extended into users and groups, in its simplest form
> it is revision-checking on documents. A wiki's page history function
> should be as capable as a cvs or subversion code repository.
>
> Aside from these items, other reasons for using a wiki exist:
>
> * I want to be able to easily make and maintain a website.
> * I want to be able to write simple documents without having to learn
> that HTML voodoo.
> * I want to be able to customize a template and have all documents
> changed. On that note, I think template-editing should be possible
> inside the wiki itself.
> * I have thousands of documents. I want to be able to easily search
> through them.
>
>
> Why use a wiki instead of:
>
> ++ A forum
>
> Posts on a forum are not re-editable. Only the thread-starter can
> edit the first post in a thread. Threads are messy and do not
> contribute to one unified document.
>
> ++ A mailing list
>
> Mailing lists make many distinct threads and do not create one unified
> document. "Sticky threads" like forums are not possible. Threads go
> unanswered, discussion becomes sidetracked. Active topics become
> increasingly difficult to follow. There is vast duplicating of
> effort.
>
> ++ A blog
>
> Although categorization is a basic step, a blog does not become a very
> good knowledgebase. It is not possible to organize a blog in nearly
> the same way as a wiki. The markup language and linking functionality
> is limited.
>
> ++ A CMS
>
> CMS' vary widely in features and ease of use. Some CMS' borrow
> directly from wiki functionality, others do not and are more difficult
> to quickly change or link between documents. CMS' are often more
> complex and intimidating than a wiki because they tie more closely to
> the "website" and "web programming" concepts than a wiki. This makes
> them more powerful but also more difficult.
>
> ++ Why not use a wiki?
>
> It's an open system which requires the user to set up their own
> concept of organization. There are too many wikis to choose from.
> Because there are few markup language standards, it is not possible to
> change one's mind and convert to another wiki later. Many wikis are
> permanently beta and are lacking "obvious important functionality".
> In particular, wikis are susceptible to graffiti and vandalism and
> lack sensible controls without completely locking it down. As they
> evolve, wikis are becoming increasingly more complex to set up and
> maintain.
|
