D Wiki

[Daniel Keep]

yigal chripun wrote:
> Daniel Keep Wrote:
>> Yigal Chripun wrote:
>>> ...
>>>
>>> 1) A CMS - depends on what package you choose but some are very good at
>>> organization of content
>> A wiki *is* a CMS.
> 
> no. I meant a CMS like joomla or something in that category.

What's the quantifiable difference?  The only one I can think of is that
CMSes are designed for closed-authorship sites (you have to register and
be approved) whereas Wikis are the other way around.  But since you can
change that, it doesn't seem like a reason to have a CMS, especially
since we *want* an open-authorship site.

>>> and also no need to deal with different
>>> home-grown wiki dialects (I never understood what's the point of
>>> replacing HTML. NIH syndrome or something?)
>> <p>Because <tt>HTML</tt> can be <em>damned</em> verbose (and ugly, to
>> boot) at times.  Not to mention <strong>hard to read</strong>.</p>
>>
>> ...
> 
> huh? when you compose an HTML message in gmail do you write all those tags?? 
> when you write a word document do you know what is the encoding of the content is??
> 
> the format is an implementation detail that should *not* be exposed to the user. a proper CMS provides you with UI to enter your content while a wiki has NO proper UI. the only "advantage" a WIKI system has is that it uses a non standard encoding format that each time you switch to a different WIKI you need to convert all your content. 
> the concept of a wiki is wrong by design. 

I hate in-browser rich text editors; every single one I've ever used
sucked massively.

For example, when I was posting on Blogger, I had to write every post
manually because their rich text editor was painful and crippled; it
wouldn't allow me to do the things I wanted to do.

Like use paragraphs.  Or insert internal links to footnotes.  You know,
really bloody basic stuff.

Until someone shows me a cross-browser rich text editor that doesn't
both blow and suck, I'm sticking to simplified markup; it's the only way
I get ANY control whatsoever.

>>> 2) google wave server would be extremely awesome once it's released
>>> later this year.
>>>
>>> --yigal
>> I doubt that.  The demo was very good at being cool, but notice how it
>> *never* showed more than about five people in a conversation at once?
>> How exactly are you going to scale that up to an entire community?
>>
>> Plus, having to manually add everyone to every conversation every time
>> you make a new page would be a tremendous pain in the ass.
>>
>> It's a great replacement for personal email, not so much for ~(personal
>> email).
>>
>> (I'm not saying having a Google Wave server of our own wouldn't be cool;
>> it just isn't appropriate for this task.)
>>
>>
>> [1] Uhh... "flip" right off.
> 
> about google wave, I think you missed the point of the presentation completely. the idea is that the system is extendable with plugins. you will not add people to conversations manually but rather we will have a forum like system built _on top_ of wave with plugins. 

No, I saw that.  I *did* watch it.

My point is that Wave is exclusive communication, not inclusive.  You
start a wave by adding the people you're interested in, then they can
add to it.

A wiki, on the other hand, lets anyone edit it without explicit
permission.  Now, maybe you could write a plugin to publish waves to a
wiki or something... but at that point, why the hell aren't you just
using the wiki itself?