Ciao Jeremy Jeremy Ruston wrote: > > The obvious characteristic of a wiki is that anyone can edit it. >
Yeah. But that applies to a vast realm of stuff that are not thought of as "wikis" at all. I mean, a lot of better WordPress elaborations do that. And include markup systems & so on. > However, I’ve always thought that more interesting characteristic of wikis > at their best is the way that they elevate linking to be part of the > punctuation of writing. In other words, features like links, recent changes > lists, orphan lists, missing lists, etc. > Right. Its a user-needs driven writing environment that creates both content, and to an extent, structure. And that is one point where I think the contrast with TW starts. Because TW goes so far with that I'm really not convinced it shares anything much more than rudimentary markup with the others. This sounds like a version of the perennial question “Should we rename > TiddlyWiki?”. My take on that is: > > a) I’d probably call the next backwards-incompatible version of TiddlyWiki > something else > b) In technical terms, renaming TiddlyWiki5 could be a monster undertaking > depending on how far one went. The name “TiddlyWiki” is riddled through the > code and the user interface > Right. I'm not really suggesting "Change its name" for TW5. I think that would a complex nightmare that would just likely lead to confusion. Not a good idea. Rather, I'm thinking into ways to describe it without falling into the existing semantics & meanings of "Wiki" now. Ways that get what it IS more accurately. d) If it’s not called TiddlyWiki then we’d probably want to rename > “tiddler” too > In a discussion some months ago on Twitter it became clear to me you need to be British to immediately "get" Tiddler ... Other English speakers, Americans and Australians, for instance, don't have the immediate visceral understanding of what it means. They simply don't label those small fish like Brits do, or have an affective relation to them. BUT I'm not sure "Tiddler" ever needs to go or even "Tiddly". Why? Because they have semantic clout because they not been infiltrated by other meanings so you can "Let the words mean what you want them to mean". I think that is good. Most well-named software does that ... it creates a semantic field of it own. And for Tiddly & Tiddler its done that, I think. Rather, I think "Wiki" has become seriously loaded. And, truthfully, I don't think most of the extant, known, Wiki systems are much like TW once you get beyond markup. (I'm not forgetting http://twiki.org/ -- but even that I think is not what most potential end users think a wiki is either.) Best wishes Josiah -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TiddlyWiki" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to tiddlywiki+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to tiddlywiki@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/tiddlywiki. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tiddlywiki/9ce60295-2bdc-4e78-aecb-b821aeff1bc7%40googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
