Programming.WikiAsConcept History

Hide minor edits - Show changes to output - Cancel

August 06, 2014, at 11:23 AM by MichaelPaulukonis -
Deleted line 61:
Changed lines 64-65 from:
[[Meatball:WysiwygWiki]] discusses visual editing
Added lines 138-143:

!! wiki blobbing or WikiLog or WikiWebLog ot Bliki or BliKi (or whatEVer)
July 25, 2014, at 01:46 PM by MichaelPaulukonis -
Changed line 54 from:
Jeff Atwood's 2008 post [[|Is HTML a Humane Markup Language?]] - Spoiler Alert: '''NO'''
Jeff Atwood's 2008 post [[|Is HTML a Humane Markup Language?]] - Spoiler Alert: '''YES''' ''for a subset of HTML''
July 25, 2014, at 01:44 PM by MichaelPaulukonis - emphasis added in markup sections, better citation
Changed lines 54-55 from:
[[|Is HTML a Humane Markup Language?]]
[[|Discussion about moving Confluence to WYSIWYG html-editor instead of wiki-markup]]
Jeff Atwood's 2008 post [[|Is HTML a Humane Markup Language?]] - Spoiler Alert: '''NO'''
Added lines 60-62:

->([[|from a discussion about moving Confluence to WYSIWYG html-editor instead of wiki-markup]])

Added lines 64-65:

Added lines 67-72:

>>clip lrindent<<
(:include PmWiki.PmWikiPhilosophy#nothtml:)
->from [[PmWiki.PmWikiPhilosophy]]
October 10, 2013, at 11:57 AM by OtherMichael -
Added lines 124-126:

May 20, 2013, at 10:22 AM by OtherMichael -
Added lines 92-109:

I haven't found that back yet (if it even exists). But just found this new comment:

One of Wikipedia's problems is that, while their editing pool is large, it's small by comparison to the number of articles.

Thus, provided the article you're editing is not one on a popular topic, you can edit largely unopposed in many cases. Thus, the advantages of crowdsourcing are neutralized; there may be only one person working on an article, and it reflects their biases.

I served on Wikipedia's Arbitration Committee for three years. The fact is, the more obsessive someone is, the more persistent, the greater the odds that they can wear down their opposition by sheer persistence.

People received credible death threats for their Wikipedia work. And not just on what one might think are controversial subjects.

On the other hand, the more one works on Wikipedia, the more one realizes that conventional sources are also highly biased, inaccurate, out-of date and fundamentally awful. NO single source is good. Major newspapers publish absolute howlers. So do scientific journals. So do reputable publishers.

Don't trust anything. Use, but don't trust.
->([[|comment]] on [[|Crowdsourcing doesn’t inoculate against corruption (2013.05.17)]] )

May 20, 2013, at 09:08 AM by OtherMichael - wikipediocracy, and note on makinglight links
Added line 3:
Added lines 93-94:
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.
Added line 111:
[[]] - ''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.”''
May 20, 2013, at 09:02 AM by OtherMichael - making-light links (add + markup)
Changed line 94 from:
[[|Gaming Wikipedia (2007.07.24)]]
Changed lines 98-99 from:
[[|Shadow Boxing (2010.05.09)]]

[[|Crowdsourcing doesn’t inoculate against corruption (2013.05.17)]] which leads us to [[|Revenge, ego and the corruption of Wikipedia]]
May 17, 2013, at 05:01 PM by OtherMichael - deletionism vs inclusionism, re-org, personal note
Changed lines 3-5 from:
!! [[#General]] General Notes
Boing[=BoingBoing=]: [[http://www|What Wikipedia's new flagged revisions system actually means (2009)]]
!! What? Not another wiki-theorist?!?
Not really
Mostly these are notes I am thinking about, or would like to reference again as I discuss why wikis are useful or interesting.

Changed lines 9-11 from:

Added line 76:
Changed lines 81-85 from:
Boing[=BoingBoing=]: [[|What Wikipedia's new flagged revisions system actually means (2009)]]


Changed lines 101-102 from:

(:include WordSalad.DeletionismVsInclusionism#wikipedia:)

Added line 106:
[[WordSalad/DeletionismVsInclusionism]] (most relevant chunk included above as ''Wikipedia Culture'')
May 14, 2013, at 04:50 PM by OtherMichael - making light research
Added lines 80-96:

!! Wiki trouble, the trouble with wiki, etc.
Making Light has regular run-ins with wikipedia.
The first I remember reading was [[]] 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.

Link dump follows:
[[|Grep that spool]] -- mine the xref links
[[|Lost clarity]]
[[|Scholarly works to avoid citing at all costs]]

May 14, 2013, at 12:50 PM by OtherMichael - using blockq markup
Changed line 12 from:
>>clip lrindent<<
Changed line 28 from:
Changed line 34 from:
Changed line 43 from:
May 13, 2013, at 11:08 AM by OtherMichael - gossip. gossip? gossip!
Added lines 15-48:

!! To what extent can wiki be gossip?

"unregulated networks of communication"

[[|gossip (definition) from merriam-webster]]

Wikipedia starts out pretty uncharitably:

Gossip is idle talk or rumor about the personal or private affairs of others. It is one of the oldest and most common means of sharing facts, views and slander. This term is used pejoratively by its reputation for the introduction of errors and variations into the information transmitted, and it also describes idle chat, a rumor of personal, or trivial nature.
->[[Wikipedia:Gossip]] on 2013.05.13

Gossip has been researched in terms of its evolutionary psychology origins. This has found gossip to be an important means by which people can monitor cooperative reputations and so maintain widespread indirect reciprocity. Indirect reciprocity is defined here as "I help you and somebody else helps me." Gossip has also been identified by Robin Dunbar, an evolutionary biologist, as aiding social bonding in large groups. With the advent of the internet gossip is now widespread on an instant basis, from one place in the world to another what used to take a long time to filter through is now instant.
->[[Wikipedia:Gossip]] on 2013.05.13

[[Wikipedia:Siva_Vaidhyanathan|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

In fact, the power of gossip, the power of unmediated, irresponsible communication is central to the story because it helps to explain how the French Revolution went so horribly wrong. The fact is that ordinary citizens in France before the revolution were adept at evading the surveillance of the state. It was an almost necessary daily habit. They used to gather throughout public places in Paris and elsewhere and exchange gossip–unflattering, probably untrue stories about life in the royal court.

This practice helped undermine faith in the French monarchy and it certainly helped spread the fertile soil of revolution. By the time France was ready to erupt, everyday people had long since abandoned any pretension of respect for the crown. What we learn from this is that anarchistic gossip has huge consequences. Peer-to-peer communication in that unmediated, uncensorable sense has always been with us.

May 07, 2013, at 04:50 PM by OtherMichael - link dump: wikipedia as teaching tool, nurturing a wiki community is HARD
Added lines 41-45:

!! small random bits
[[|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.''
May 03, 2013, at 10:29 AM by OtherMichael -
Added lines 28-41:

!! wikilog
Also known as a ''bliki''
->The virtues of combining wiki and weblog functionality in your own software (which means very easy, high-density linking between both types of entry, and consistency of managing the address, full ownership etc.) outweigh any qualms about the difference of addressing philosophies.

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 [[WebDevelopment.WpPmWikiPlugin|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.

April 23, 2013, at 03:15 PM by OtherMichael - Aaron Swartz and Holmes Wilson discuss wikipedia
Changed lines 8-15 from:

!! [[#truth]] ''Truth, what is that?'' or ''Holmes and Aaron in conversation''
>>clip lrindent<<
‘Yes, look at Wikipedia,’ I say. ‘Wikipedia was founded by an Objectivist and its policies are explicitly anti-truth.’ ‘Anti-truth? Wikipedia’s policy is truth through process.’ ‘The Wikipedia npov policy page explicitly says that it doesn’t matter whether something is true or not — it can only be put on a Wikipedia page if it’s popular. And that makes some sense from a certain perspective, but it’s certainly not political. In a messed-up society like ours, neutral policies don’t have neutral effects. The process will just reinforce the status quo.’
April 10, 2013, at 03:22 PM by OtherMichael - thoughts on markup
Added lines 1-2:
(:description miscellaneous things in an ad-hoc organization:)
Added lines 10-20:

!! [[#markup]] Thoughts on Markup
[[|Is HTML a Humane Markup Language?]]
[[|Discussion about moving Confluence to WYSIWYG html-editor instead of wiki-markup]]
>>clip lrindent<<
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.
[[]] - includes a note on safely enabling javascript
May 13, 2011, at 10:10 AM by OtherMichael -
Changed lines 2-3 from:
Boing[=BoingBoing=]: [[|What Wikipedia's new flagged revisions system actually means (2009)]]
Changed lines 6-8 from:

Added line 10:
[[Wiki]] - notes on specific Wiki platforms, books, etc.
September 03, 2009, at 10:26 AM by OtherMichael -
Added lines 1-11:
!! [[#General]] General Notes

hey, I like wikis -- otherwise I wouldn't be using one as my CMS. Is that a perversion?

!! [[#SeeAlso]] See Also

!! [[#Categories]] Category tags
[[!Programming]] [[!wikis]]