hartnell 1209237516|%e %b %Y, %H:%M %Z|agohover
What makes a wiki better than another kind of website?
Why use a wiki rather than any other kind of website?
— Shawn
hartnell, 1209237516|%e %b %Y, %H:%M %Z|agohover
Socks 1209238890|%e %b %Y, %H:%M %Z|agohover
For the same reason people like wikipedia. If you know something on a wiki is wrong, you can fix it. If you want to add content, go ahead. You don't need to be the admin to do it.
On the other hand, if you are the admin, and you don't want anyone able to edit it, you can easily turn it off.
Also, you get to view pages as you edit them, so without the WYSIWYG editor, you can make almost any change you want.
I'm not going to rant about WYSIWYG editors right now.
/Socks
Socks, 1209238890|%e %b %Y, %H:%M %Z|agohover
hartnell 1209242023|%e %b %Y, %H:%M %Z|agohover
I'm not going to rant about WYSIWYG editors right now.
I'm not a big fan of WYSIWYG editors either… :)
— Shawn
hartnell, 1209242023|%e %b %Y, %H:%M %Z|agohover
reprapper 1223144243|%e %b %Y, %H:%M %Z|agohover
I think wikis are good because people can easily edit them, and many people can. It is easier for a wiki to grow if it has a user base that is supporting it than it would for a non-wiki with a user base.
reprapper, 1223144243|%e %b %Y, %H:%M %Z|agohover
Oli 1212243357|%e %b %Y, %H:%M %Z|agohover
The admin doesn't have to do all the work. ;)
Oli, 1212243357|%e %b %Y, %H:%M %Z|agohover
Craig Macomber 1212265308|%e %b %Y, %H:%M %Z|agohover
Even if the admin does all the work, it is usually easier to use wikidot than other systems (at least the few I have tried). Thats not a wiki thing though, thats just wikidot.
Craig Macomber, 1212265308|%e %b %Y, %H:%M %Z|agohover
Remi Torracinta 1213331118|%e %b %Y, %H:%M %Z|agohover
A nonwiki is written by one person, one view, one side of the story. By having a wiki, your not reading (or seeing) the thoughts of one person, but of many people having edited the page, improving it and improving it, pushing the content to it's best. Plus, information on wikis stay fresh and relavent to the present. (A new discovery concerning some branch of physics would quickly be posted, keeping the wiki fresh up to date, for example.) The god vs. bad is discussed on a site called "why wiki works". Just google it and you'll find it.
Remi Torracinta, 1213331118|%e %b %Y, %H:%M %Z|agohover
uccert 1220283499|%e %b %Y, %H:%M %Z|agohover
Agree with all of the above. I've been reading a book called "Wikinomics, written by Don Tapscott & Anthony Williams and it was certainly enlightening. The new web 2.0 is causing havoc across the globe, breaking down barriers as we push to colloborate and share ideas etc..
Wiki's are fab cos you can edit over and over whilst others contribute from all four corners of the world. Whereas within the old web1.0 era web pages were static and dull.
uccert, 1220283499|%e %b %Y, %H:%M %Z|agohover
WhiteCorvid 1223339985|%e %b %Y, %H:%M %Z|agohover
At first I was going to make a normal website on my topic of choice (birdkeeping). But there is so much work involved making a website full of quality content, it was too much. And how could I even compete against the larger websites?
I wanted a website that people will keep coming back to instead of just looking at once. The best way to achieve this is get the viewers involved with interaction. I was going to do this with just a forum (iffy… not easy starting a new forum with so many established ones).
Then it smacked me in the face. A wiki is as interactive as one can get (a wiki with a forum, even)! Not only does it encourage returning users (and like Wikipedia, being such a good resource attracts a lot of return readers), I don't even have to do all the work. Easier and better.
And that's why wikis kick butt. :D
WhiteCorvid, 1223339985|%e %b %Y, %H:%M %Z|agohover
