Arguments

See http://www.c2.com/cgi/wiki?WhyWikiWorks for more.

Certainly, these arguments, if they can be so called, do seem a bit hostile - I might even call them elitist. I am an enthusiastic wiki advocate, but certainly there is no need to confuse such enthusiasm with a vehement denunciation of those who feel less secure, or perhaps feel more paranoid, about the security of factual information. Certainly we can simply say, "Yes, if you're worried for the safety of information, you really should verify it yourself -- Heck, if you're that worried, why not just post a disclaimer at the top of the page expressing that concern!" Wiki's work because nobody, not even the cranks, are left out, and because most of the people most of the time are competent enough to notice and correct the cranks' malfeasance. (It might also be noted that this is why non-computerized life keeps "working" most of the time). --c.b.e.o'k

So that's it - insecure, indiscriminate, user-hostile, slow, and full of difficult, nit-picking people. Any other online community would count each of these strengths as a terrible flaw. Perhaps wiki works because the other online communities don't. --PeterMerel

I think Wiki is weird and prone to sabotage. It presently works, because it's not well known and no one really cares. But try implementing Wiki on a Yahoo-level site--it would be total chaos! (anonymous Wiki opponent). Then again, look at Wikipedia ... it's bigger than Yahoo in my opinion, and it's working well ...

I don't think it's slow.. maybe some of the complex ones which run off databases and try to do too much? --LarsOlson

Your change was 4 minutes old when I saw it. If it had been real sabotage, I would have removed it. -- ThomasWaldmann 2002-03-22 09:56:53

When you said "Yahoo-level site"... you mean like the Wikipedia? It seems to me to run smooth... :)

I agree with anonymous, if I wished, I could have deleted this whole page. Perhaps a user base system with logins would make more sense.

Anonymous -- how much traffic do you suppose wikipedia.org gets on a daily basis? It maybe not be quite yahoo level, but it's certainly not chaos either. But yes, some pages have been locked after repeated vandalism. Having an administration team is still nice on a wiki. Also, if you did delete the whole page I could look at the history, and reload a version before you erased the text. -- Bob/Paul

With MoinMoin it is ok. Some versions like OpenWiki and Ward's Wiki only keep a couple of recent versions and then recovering stuff is very hard. I am still trying to recover some of the syndicate lists on the former overwritten with spam. You need a pretty plugged in community if you depend on them to recover rapidly-- AndrewCates

If you click on the "info" icon, you can access any old revision of this page. So even wiping a page does no permanent damage as one can easily restore an undamaged older revision. -- ThomasWaldmann 2002-05-12 10:19:54

'Quite Likely'? ~ Not definitley. This is a valid method of attack and very simple to execute. Hoping the perpetrator is automagically caught doesn't leave me feeling very secure. - A Wiki Administrator

We use Wiki on an internal site at work that is for documentation - the precise qualities of Wiki make it very well suited for this purpose - it's editable by anyone, at any time, for any reason. There is a revision history of all of the pages in the web. As for the concept of user accountability - we require login to edit, but logins are open to anyone..... - JonStanley

How far back in history can you go with the diff's? Can you set somewhere on MoinMoin how many revisions to keep? -- -- -- DavidCollantes 2002-05-21 10:38:57

Firstly, Wiki is not meant for Yahoo! level sites. It is just for people to put in their thoughts. Somebody wants to delete the whole site, that is his thought. - general_failure

Maybe but the defences at Wikipedia (which is more than one million pages) seem to work well on vandalism and spam. Defences against claptrap are another matter --AndrewCates

Which brings me to my particular interest. As an educator there are some exciting applications for WIKI. However, shortcomings obvious to adults might be difficult for students to recognize. The "trolls and boneheaded idiots" can come off as the "experts" to a young mind....middle school teacher

My english teacher told us that we could not use any thing that comes from wikipeida as a referance. Claiming we needed more Reliable Sources. - r00m23

In many ways, wikipedia is like a Centralized Version Control System, open for anyone... its problems are easily deductible from there. Its a mess and of very low quality in many/most articles. I you don't beleive, try editing stuff in heated articles. Trolls and boneheaded idiots with plenty of time available abound and they get particularly passionate and irrational about their beliefs. To me the soulution is making it a Descentralized version Control System, and the WIKIPEDIA repo being democratically managed (it encourages cooperation for those who can cooperate, because the most comprehensive article would probably be selected, and it encourages addressing criticism and sharp edges because in other versions they might be pointed out and thus will make your article look stupid unneededly, like "why it is important to address holocaust denial besides silencing it"). Maybe developing mechanisms for users polling on a per article basis to implement this mode, with regular polling for new versions (or opening up again) would be the way to push change where needed, when needed, and as non disruptively as possible.--Anonymous User

The shortcomings of Usenet are obvious, and thereby the need for a new collaboration paradigm is equally obvious.. but we still need hierarchal-like organization (or perhaps something better?), and rather than the ridiculous prospect that any idiot can come by and destroy stuff for kicks (be it reversible or not) what is needed is a simple authentication method, not blocking IP?s or Browsers, but user accounts, and if the user has the motivation necessary to create a new account so that s/he can destroy something again, then s/he?ll be blocked again. What?s important is that the process cannot be automated; people who get their kicks from doing stupid crap like that wouldn?t think it was fun if they had to come-up with a new username/password every time they did it.

I think that if you really believe what is just above then you missed (almost) the whole point (I know this is provocative but read this):

  1. it's written: "but we still need hierarchal-like organization", I don't see any argument here, for me this is just cultural background.
  2. it's written: "the ridiculous prospect that any idiot can come by and destroy stuff for kicks", once more, this is just a mind view, this is what we (all ?) believed at the beginning of wiki, but what we (almost) never see. Experience is sometimes different than "theory" :o)
  3. it's written: "what is needed is a simple authentication method", any authentication method can be broken, one of the best solution (like in wikipedia) is: login if you want. But I don't think this is really important as soon as you can get someone else's identity, there is a risk. If someone blocks my account, I will create a new one or take someone's account. Just because people who should be banned are not banned and respected, there is a cultural training. For me the process described above of "new account / block again" is the tragic initial mistake of the repression model. The consequences are more often new sabotage than comprehension. And the last sentence is really wrong, the more you ban someone, the more the will he'll have to come back and create more important damages.
    • I agree that login does not solve everything. (I keep seeing wiki compared to a "yahoo size"...so here we go.) I have this one program(there are many like it.) that can automate the new account making process. I can do about one every 30 sec. It is that slow only becouse yahoo requires you to enter in some letters and numbers that show up in a picture. Many accounts are needed to do such things as kicking other users out of the system by sending them hundereds of msgs. I have made over 300 accounts(called bots.). Creating an account maker is not hard and can be done for almost any website. - R00m23
    • . IP banning has been proven to help in some cases. (As seen here in this wiki, but also in many places online.)However, its not flawless. When Im working in a yahoo system I will go through proxys and assume thier IP address as mine. If I get block, just switch to a differant proxy. Also consider that thier are many publicly accessed internet connections were the users IP address does not follow them. This could be a problem to a user who is denied access simple becouse some one else(could even be a hacker) did the worng thing.- R00m23

But anyway this is very instructive. The most powerful "proof" for me is what is written at the beginning by someone: "I agree with anonymous, if I wished, I could have deleted this whole page." but this never happened (except for an experiment like you can read later on that page) :o) For me the wiki power is the freedom power. If you give someone more freedom, there is a big chance that he will appreciate it and be thankful. If you give someone less freedom, there is a big chance that he will try to get more freedom by all means (usually by infringing "laws").

As long as there are more active signal suppliers than noise suppliers, we will see the wonderful results we see here today. However, when todays mail and usenet spammers become aware of the "media space" and audience available on wikis, there will be tools for automatically introducing noise on wikis all over the web, and people actively promoting something other than what a particular wiki was intended for.

Until then we will have fun. After that, we'll probably manage to come up with something that gives us the ability to have some more fun.

Personally, I believe that the distributed key signing architechture of PGP/GnuPG will be a tight fit for this task. A page change that is unsigned will be anonymous, and will be "accepted" by someone who reads it and signs it. If you want your changes to stand for them selves, you will have to get your key signed by someone who is accepted. If your key is signed by someone who is misusing their privilege (signing spammers keys repeatedly), they will become "untrusted", and you will have to get your key signed by others in the community. In short, a formalization of trust.

While browsing the wiki, you will have the option to read only the latest signed revision of a page.

Regards, Per Gunnar Hansø.

I think that the Wiki is a good forum and given the way in which the page is changed, people are inclined to change it in ways that are non-destructive -Jason

"Opponents" to Wiki's always amaze me. It's the greatest example of fear of freedom. "You mean, anyone can do whatever they want!? NO, I'm opposed to it!" Fear of the unknown. Fear that an unsupervised, uncontrolled system can actually work. Fear of loss of control. Reminds me of the cries we are hearing from the RIAA with regard to sharing.

Your note reminds me so much of Monty Python's "Life of Brian": 

(Brian)-"You are all individuals!"
(crowd)-"We are all individuals!"
(Brian)-"You have to be different!"
(crowd)-"Yes, we are all different!"
(loner)-"I'm not."

(This is my first encounter of Wiki, and within a minutes of reading this page, I edited some grammar, snuck in a couple of winks, and gave the above comment. BTW, found about wiki via the comedi project...) IamSil

Yuck! I had a look at Metababy, and really regretted the experience. Looks like wiki could become just another way for sickos to get their kicks.

Wasn't it de Tocqueville who said something like, "America is great because its people are good. If its people cease to be good, it will cease to be great"? A community prospers or fails by the acts of its constituents. If a wiki can be sabotaged by one bad actor, what chance can it have?

I can't help but add that wikis are doomed to fail at some point. The philosophy they use is anarchy. In a anarchy society there are no balances or checks, so the system continues to grow in whatever direction those that steal power more than others choose, as in every system someone always has more power than another, and someone always finds a way to steal it for themselves. On wikipedia these are admins, in our society these are governments and corporations, as you must remember our own society developed from anarchy, and those of power will always promote anarchy, using the word freedom, but real freedom can only be defended and faught for someone else, not yourself. This is what gives it its power, as convincing a man to trade his freedom for something else is easy, but convincing every man to trade his morals, ethics, character, honor, respect, duty, and loyality, is like trying to buy the earth. Just try voicing your truth, as all truth is relative, on wikipedia, if admins don't agree, your voice is no longer heard, all under a supposition/deception of rules, laws, or policy. There is descrimination, towards those that differ from status quo of those in power, identical to actual society, yet not recompence or due process protects those that fall victim. This will soon come to a head with all wikis becoming facist, authoritative, bully mongering systems, that are to large to replace. This is why the GPL and is philosophy is will turn out to be true and righteous, as it enforces each others user's rights, with a system in place to protect those rights, in perpetuity. --Anonymous--

A Deliberate Sabotage

This page deliberately sabotaged... with the best of intentions.

On the original version of the page an opponent of Wiki claimed if I wished I could have deleted this whole page. However Wikis survive such things because, I suppose, people who care about a page restore them. Since there are old established Wikis out there, and they dont get trashed, I assume it works.

So I have deleted the whole of the WhyWikiWorks page and replaced it with this test. My guess is that the old page will be restored reasonably promptly. If not I will restore the old page myself in a day or two. Either way I will report on whether the test worked.

NickHollingsworth 08 Jul 2002.

FelixBreuer 08 Jul 2002

NickHollingsworth 08 Jul 2002.

Since moving over to Linux, I started using Jedit. Now that's my information organization program - I just arrange things in files and use jedit's searching facilities and macros/shortcuts/plugins to find the info I need.

I also started writing Docbook. Jedit and Docbook both have moin pages. And the real cool synergy comes from a couple of places - first, the ability edit pages directly inside Jedit thanks to the moinmoin plugin. Very cool. I just started running my own moin and I am kicking myself for not doing it sooner! The possibilities for information organization and sharing are endless.

But now, I'm using moin to plugin non-editable content. I have a book I am writing which I plan to publish. I want to make the content available inside the wiki and allow people to make comments. I embedded the generated HTML from a docbook inside a moin page by writing just a few lines of python code in a macro. You can add comments below the macro, but you can't touch the book.

Moin is not just editable pages - it's an OO framework for building webapps too. Very flexible if you know python.

--AlanEzust 2004-07-24

I like Wikis too, even though I heard about it yesterday for the first time - but what about the dangers? Anybody who reaches this site could change my ((and your) and yours too!) texts, nobody can be sure if he/she(or it!) wouldn?t be traduced by changing his/her text, for example into something racist...

I think I wouldn?t start up my own public Wiki, but I think I?ll visit some Wikis in the future. Greetz from Berlin/Germany -- Oli 16 Sept 2002

Yes. It can take some hours if you have a very small, not often visited wiki. But then it won't be seen by many users anyway (it is not often visited ;-) ). If you have a well-known wiki that is often visited, it will only last some minutes and won't be seen by much people, too. So it is a bit annoying but not a big problem anyway. You also may put the FrontPage into read-only mode, because that page needs not to be changed often, but is the most inviting one for various idiots doing dumb stuff. -- ThomasWaldmann 2002-12-01 11:44:15

why bother?

= LONG LIVE WIKI = -- JimmyMiller 2003-01-06 17:03:00 .

Tried just this sort of thing at school with a wordpad file left open on the screen. People just added stuff to it all day. Then the saboteurs entered and started paki-bashing a friend of mine so they took it off. Didn't work.

MauriceAlbert

P.S I just think Wiki is amazing, how it secures itself while being so open.

As it turns out, smaller wiki communities tend to have less vandalismanyway, as less people are aware of them. Also, smaller wikis tend tohave larger percentages of active participants, so the first activeparticipant to find the vandalism generally isn't that far away. -- LeeDavisThalbourne

DavidMattison, 2003-05-20

AleksandrKoltsoff, 2003-05-28

Anyway, take care and I hope that the humming bird gets better!

Richard I-don't-have-my-own-Wiki-page Rauch, 20030718

While the level of individual with the time and dedication to do such, coupled with the sociopathic instinct to destroy things others enjoy, is a fairly rare occurrence, the internet age has taught us that such pathological individuals do exist, and that they can affect computers anywhere in the world. Unfortunately, there is little that can be done to protect a wiki from such saboteurs without severely curtailing its usability to the people for which it is there in the first place. It's the old conflict between freedom and security...

-- Mapache 2003-09-28

Well, generally most wikis have the assumption that people should be bold - thus, you find something that seems wrong, you just go ahead and fix it. It doesn't typically matter how long it's been up there, since the next person to see it will probably edit it out. -- LeeDavisThalbourne

P.S. Sorry for my bad english.

-- random web surfer who was looking for WRT54G information. 2004-08-21

Why Wikis Don't Work as Well as We Think They Do

Having installed two wiki's (one for work, one for a class), I believe there are some usability issues that prevent them from fulfilling their promise. Assume that most people are not going to invest 20 minutes or more of their time to understand formatting unless there's a big payoff for them. I offer this in the hopes that we can all think about how to solve these problems:

1) People don't use wiki's because they don't realize they can actually make changes. I've found that most of my wiki's audience (participants?) bring a broadcast mindset to anything on the web. The idea that they can make changes is totally foreign to them and they're anxious at first when it comes to "talking back." "Sandboxes" don't seem to be sufficient to get people over the hump. We need something else...

I've been using wikipedia for a while without realising what the wiki part meant, to me it was just a useful encyclopedia and thats what it will remain now as I have nothing worth adding to it. Wikis work now, one day sabotage may stop them from being effective but it is all good.

2) Strangely enough, the "free-form" aspect of wiki isn't free form enough. There's no way to easily create columns. I looked at wikis originally as a way of blogging. Most blogs are two or three columns, but only one column could be powered by a wiki, the others I had to do in HTML. I wish I didn't have to make this compromise. Maybe columns isn't the answer, maybe tables are because that's really what columns are made out of in HTML...

I work in an ad agency and we deal in short attention spans. We need to design better ways to accommodate these short attention spans at the initial stage of using a wiki. Once people see the benefit, then they will invest the time into using them.

-- Joel Greenberg 10/20/03

In regards to point number 2, you may want to check out SnipSnap. It's a combination of a Weblog (with columns) and a Wiki.

-- Richard Terry 1/8/2003

With regards to point number 1, no. People will invest incredible amounts of time learning all kinds of things - um, video recorders spring to mind! - as long as they think there is some benefit (however imaginary). So people who don't want to learn how to use wiki are those who see no benefit (and would probably not contribute anyway - no loss). -- MeDerek 1 May 2004

For point number 2, there is now a macro in the MacroMarket called Columns. It's not fully automatic, but close enough.

-- AnttiKuntsi 2004-06-14

That's not a problem of wiki, but just whether you have people writing good content or not. With wiki you CAN have MORE people doing that, doing that TOGETHER even. But if you still end up with nobody doing it, you would have the same problem without a wiki, too. -- ThomasWaldmann 2004-03-23 19:53:49

- rob

Generate controversy, especially heated debate over ambiguous subjects. This will raise the level of noise and frustration, driving people away.

Look for facts. Distort them. Replacing complicated data with slight changes can be detected, but only if a person is willing to pore over it and validate it. A difference engine and source control help when source material is changed in a complex, subtle ways. But enough accumulated errors cause a failure of trust.

And never forget; if you can set this page to something, someone else can set it to something else. Last in wins.

** Verifying that not only can I vote for the candidate of my choice, but I can add my two cents on web pages too.

Regards, Waylon. --- Here is what I don't get, if someone wants to destroy your wiki, why don't they run a script to destroy it.

"1111111111111111me, i just kept the edit page open to see what would happen. edit lock expiration happened. Perhaps a tragdy of the commons in reverse; that is - the time element trumps the resource element?"

Was your deletion based upon perceived cogency/presentation of the thought, or perceived relevance to the thread topic?

I like how the last deletion serves as the sample for deleted text. An interesting functionality would be an archive/cache showing the original sample deleted text; all deleted texts, and discussion threads originating from each instance. The parallel universe discussions add context to the (never quite finished) product. That is, using an allegory from published text, some of the most illuminating reading is not the published book-but the editorial comments and responses to comments.

Perhaps the ‘last edited by’ sub posting box provides the avenue for cataloguing into this suggested ‘deletions and discussion’ thread cache. An unintended and perhaps heretical-to-form consequence is that this same avenue could serve a the forum where, instead of posting my take on the deleted text process to the document, I could have posted query portion directly to the last ‘edited by’ username, presuming – perhaps in error- this username also performed the last deletion.

WOW- first time visiter, impressed - Dave

Yes, that happens. And wikis are adapting to this new situation. See CategorySpam.

Dave - Sydney

-Howin 6/19/2005

The difference - as far as I can see it - is that the users (as opposed to the actual original contributers) are able to control the state of the work. It may start simple - a first time Wiki user will proabably not know that (s)he can restore a site that someone put flame on. But she may see the "report" button and simply use it, or she may edit spelling mistakes.

A new topic that isn't completely silly will be watched now and then and therefore edited now and then. At some point it reaches a level of quality that people just don't want to edit it. For me it Wikis replace mostly what the Usenet was to me before - and is an additional starting point for research, replacing search engines to some extend.

I don't see that different opinions about a topic are a problem for a wiki. Sooner or later a neutral user will be confused by constant changes of a site that two opposing factions war on. The he may simple go back and history and provide both oppinions, or seperate them and remove the flames. After that there will always be a fall back version and any fighting for the pages content will be futile.

What may be a problem is that Wikis are easy to abuse by people who use another ones wiki for his own community that aren't of any interest for the whole and just use up space. For example an online-game "guild" may create subpages to a page describing the game and organize their community matters there.

Also I think that Wikis shouldn't be overestimated. They are good for research and providing information from a community to a community. But sometimes a page using a Wiki would have better worked using a CMS like :arrow: Typo3; especially if there is a relatively low number of actual contributers. Simply because possibilities are larger, structure may be predifined and user and contributer limitations can better be organized.

The one thing I'd wish out of open-source wikis and other opensourceproject is that they'd work better together. For example: integration of wiki and bulletin bord software such as :arrow: phpBB. --BjörnKeil

Unfortunately, the coming 'hello world' community may not be as perceptive or astute as the current community. As information and entertainment are merged, the rest of the world will collapse the golden age of wiki.

That doesn't mean that these communities should be put on hold... rather, the world needs time to become edjucated and adjusted. In The Networked Planet™, the choice is simple; become enlightened or be left behind. -Anonymous Deviant

Comments

Why Wiki?

(Please add your comments about what should or should'nt be part of the arguments up above)

Bookshelves and Desktops

(Is a Wiki a "bookshelf" or a "desktop" or both?)

Wikis still lack a good hierarchical organization model.

Table of Contents

Basic "drill down" access to information.

Indexes and Notes

Indexes should be categorical. ie. Index to Variable Names, Index to Constants, Index to Function Names. Indexes should be internal and external. In print, notes are typically presented at page foot or document end.

Structured Information

A fairly large collection of unstructured information becomes unmanageable.

Wikis need to be able to efficiently (input and retrieval) store "phone messages" in a "phone log" and that "phone log" in a "project folder". Retrieval of "phone messages" by date, subject, message taker, etc. Wiki "form plug-ins" are getting there.

Contributors and Editors

Publications have Contributors and Editors. Contributors have reputations and resumes. Editors fact check, critique, "trim the fat", etc. We trust what we read, in part, because we trust the editors and contributors.

Raw and Cooked

Large robust next generation Wikis (are the current only rewrites earlier "hypertext" systems?) will need Raw and Cooked sections, where the Raw section resembles "Letters to the Editor" and the Cooked section resembles a traditional print/online publication. Contributors should be free to "wiki away" and editors should "simmer" the Raw into a concise fact checked presentation.

Linguistic Domains

"The statistician did a regression analysis on data about childhood regression." Of course statistical regression is not childhood regression. Perhaps Wiki phrases are in order regression[statistical] and regression[psychological]. We are awed at the amount of information online, the fact is once the Library of Congress, etc. go online, finding things, even with tools like Google, will be a nightmare. Wikis must be prepared for this eventuality.

Wikis Are Quick and Dirty

Wiki Words

Frankly I find the Wiki Word format distasteful.

I would prefer some form of prefixing such as an underscore or something similar. Perhaps there are good arguments for and against this convention, I have not found many.

Why was HTTP/HTML a success?

Wikis are succeeding for the same reasons HTTP/HTML succeeded?

User Interface (UI)

In the early HTML days, documents were generated using text editors. Wikis need stronger UIs, that are presentational and structural. The presentation is easier than the structural. The ease of mixing text and graphics and distributing it to a wide audience was a huge selling point for HTTP/HTML.

Mail Integration

Interfacing with email is critical. Any one up for a mail/wiki interface? How would that work? Interwiki Mail?

Email Re: = Wiki Changes?

Conclusions

I guess, the only reason Wiki works is because its very easy to destroy. Anyone can do it, so nobody bothers.

I would say, it works because the number of good users far outway the number of bad users. The way society works itself.

The main reason for its being still there I think is it can be repaired before it is destroyed.

I'm not sure if Wikis can do this or not, as I'm just now reading up on them and about to start one (or two), but I'm hoping I can set authorization as:

.Keith DC, US

Also, has anyone tried pressing "check spelling" button on this page? What happens is very confusing! Why aren't all those normal words in the dictionary? Plus it should only check what I've just added, not everyone's past comments. And finally, the paragraphs and indentation all change around if I preview before saving.

Will, UK

Welcome, Will!

(!) This WhyWikiWorks page is rather a "wiki philosophy" page that a page to discuss about wanted features or usage or problems.

We already have some FeatureRequests about section editing. The spell check is extremely simple and need a word list installed. If the wiki site you tried has no such word list, it will show lots of unknown words.

-- ThomasWaldmann 2006-12-13 11:11:04

= Wiki Whacked =; == Whacked Wiki==. I just performed my first wiki wikiing??? I am trying to learn about the wiki world for it has become wide and I am so new it and yet everyone is saying how easy it is to do. Where do you host a wiki and can you make it private? I have ADD and the internet is a great thing for people like me and yet here I am editing a page. How does one start a wiki?

-- J.Sharbel 2007-09-06 03:49:08 what does that do? is there a wiki for dummies yet?

--tara

This is my real opportunity to really try using Wiki technology and Iloveit. As a professional website developer I hate using WYSIWYG stuff in general (think Frontpage, Dreamweaver and so on) because users can mess up my lovely code that powers their online shop... lol. Macromedia came up with something a few years ago called Contribute but I don't like having to pay for software when the idea and principle of it should be in the public domain. I think Wikis could be incredibly useful for people like me, in that I can create a design (or some advanced code - or both) and my users/clients can just edit the bits that I choose - and not destroy the entire site in the process. I think I've got the concept & idea right - now to put it into practice! Benjamin Howarth (medicineworker.spaces.live.com)

Wikipedia is a proving ground that the human race can exist without hierachy when everyone has a common set of ideals not tainted by sight, colour, race, religion, class or other forms of social stratification. I hope this will be the tide where those who seek to preserve knowledge as their own, loose it, while those who seek to share knowledge, gain it. daren_l

MoinMoin: WhyWikiWorks (last edited 2024-08-20 17:28:32 by UlrichB)