Welcome to the CommunityWiki!
We talk about communities both online and offline: management, teaching, conflicts, mediation, and some tech talk mostly about tools used for online communities.
Feel free to join in. See WelcomeVisitors to get started as a contributor.
Wiki movement is close to being dead. We all know that. This text will probably get read by just one person other than me which proves my thesis (hello, Alex, I decided to write this message to everyone instead of a private message). I can only imagine how this wiki used to be years ago. Lively, pulsating. Something like that. I’ve never been there.
But what’s not dead? Atlassion Confluence (a proprietary product), Wikimedia Foundation and wikis on wikifarms like FanDom? (used to be Wikia) that describe modern media. Even wikis on services like GitHub or GitLab? are not widely used.
Wikipedia damaged everyone, people have FearOfEditing. Here’s a story. We’ve recently started a wiki http://klavarog.tk for an active keyboard community in Russia. Really active community, I mean. There were accounts created for each and every one. Now go to http://klavarog.tk/recent-changes and see that it’s not that lively (still more lively than most wikis out there). I’ve heard people talking things like ‘Yeah I’ll finish writing the stuff and publish a polished version to the wiki later’. Until then, they are posting thoughts into chats and discuss it there. Well, it makes sense, of course, but then you can’t find anything. Chats are ephemeral. Wikis are the true power. Over time, surfing a big, aged wiki is so much better than scrolling through messages in a chat room.
NB. The keyboard community I mentioned spent two weeks configuring the discord server. Several hour-long voice calls, detailed discussions, etc. I played an active role in that. And it’s still nowhere as good as an active wiki could be.
I have a dream. I have a dream that one day wikis will be a dominant form of collaboration. I want communities to be centered around wikis, not chats or source code repositories. I want people to lose their FearOfEditing and just write.
And I think it is going to happen. It won’t be the same as in the days of WikiWikiWeb, of course. I expect wikis to become more personal. Note the whole digital garden, second brain and memex discussion circulating around the nets. People are starting to realize they need something wiki-like. Perhaps, a vast network of loosely connected wikis is what we really need. Also, remember I’ve mentioned that MoinMoin is dead? MoinMoinTwo? is actually being developed. Cool.
WardCunningham is also busy developing SmallFederatedWiki. I don’t really understand what it is, navigation is so complex and there is no helpful description to be found. There are Zoom meetings every Wednesday. I’ve been on one, I haven’t really understood anything.
Do you have your personal wikis? I started one in July or August or something like that. I tried MediaWiki and MoinMoin but ended up developing my own engine MycorrhizaWiki. So far my home wiki (called CyberRachel) has around 850 pages. It’s enough for someone to spend a noticeable time consuming all the content I’ve generated. That’s the plan. I will tell my family to publish a snapshot of Cyberrachel to the net when I die. Something for researchers to research. Part of legacy, yeah.
— 🍄 TimurIsmagilov
So, what do we do? How do we revive wikis? I think developers and users of smaller WikiEngine, not something big like MediaWiki, should unite. Here, on this wiki, for example. There are at least two of us: me with my MycorrhizaWiki and AlexSchroeder with his Oddmuse and Phoebe and the whole TransjovianCouncil concept. Let’s find more people and bring them together. We’ll figure out what to do, maybe. And if we don’t, well, so be it.
Who do we call here? Who’s developing wiki engines nowadays?
Assuming the whole personalitation of wikis fashion, here are some things features modern wiki engines should seriously consider.
For every user, perhaps. [[fandom?|Fandom]] used to have it. I’m not sure about now, the site is so difficult to navigate that I don’t know how things have changed. alexschroeder.ch has a Diary. Afaik, CaseDuckworth? ~acdw seems to running Phoebe which also has blog-like functionality. Doubleloop has their site separated into Stream (blog) and Garden (personal wiki).
GoogleDocs? has it! People use it. People need it. Why?! I don’t understand.
I also want to add copying of data from other sites. Something like cloning tweets, posts, whole webpages. It’s really convenient for personal wikis. See Mycorrhiza:Idea/Import
Also, bots that remind people of new edits on wikis should be made. For example, I’ve made a Discord bot for the aforementioned keyboard community that checks for new edits on the wiki every 10 minutes and notifies people in a special channel if there are any edits. Sadly, it didn’t have any real impact, WikiRapture didn’t happen.
This may include showing just a subset of context pages from the table of contents: all siblings at the same level and all child pages, for example. Examples include MycorrhizaWiki, Notion, EverNote, GitBook, etc. A common feature.
We have this structure of hyphae/pages:
a a1 a2 a2a b b1 c
For hypha a, this is what is shown:
a a1 a2 a2a b c
For hypha c, this is what is shown:
c a b
Intersite backlinks can be done with something like Webmentions. Seems like a great way to connect wikis together.
Yeah, wikis are problematic, and we’ve known this for many years. Let’s talk about these issues. Let’s spell them out, and admit that we don’t want to solve them and why.
Search is an unsolved problem, specially when not all pages are equal. Sure, on Wikipedia they are. But in an environment with blog pages that age, with projects that shut down, those pages are not as important as other pages. Integrating this information into search engines is hard.
One way to solve this for blog wikis is to sort wiki pages by date descending (followed by all the non-date pages), and search them in that order. Hardly a generic and resilient technique.
Another way to solve this for projects (common endeavours by groups of people) is to put each project into a separate namespace, like the RPG campaigns on Campaign Wiki, for example. That works well for self-contained projects.
If the projects are overlapping, there’s additional overhead: where to put new pages, how to link pages in other spaces, and so on.
A special syntax could be introduced to indicate how important a page is. A page which starts with this ⬇️ would be on top of search results:
Results could also be viewed by view count for the last year. Popular pages are probably what you want.
New stuff is added but nobody maintains the forward indexes (menus), nobody adds tags, nobody cleans up tags, nobody deletes outdated text, nobody rewrites related pages because everybody prefers dumping a new page into the wiki and hopes that readers will know which ones are the deprecated pages and which are the current pages. Needless to say, this is why wikis fail.
It is morally acceptable to edit other people’s signed texts. BeBold. But people don’t really do it.
A wiki engine that enforces a form of structure could facilitate this problem. See MycorrhizaWiki’s tree structure. You just end up categorizing everything.
Writing a page on your blog is a way to get credit. People like you, they subscribe to your feed, they leave comments on your posts, you, you, you! You are king!
On a wiki, not only are you limiting your audience to your fellow wiki members (probably no more than a handful of readers), but it will get drowned, reworked, vandalised and forgotten. There’s a lot of work you need into the system for it to work. The only reward is when the current wiki editor crew is jiving and jamming and there is joy in seeing that interaction, there’s joy in seeing your text improved by others. But seeing is believing and when you’re starting out, it is hard to believe.
Perhaps that’s why PersonalWiki become more popular.
Wikis for community work great if they describe something in particular. A popular TV show, book, etc.
Gemini is both a simple, new protocol to serve HyperText, and a simple, new markup language. It has it’s own site, Project Gemini. That’s where you can find the specification, as well as clients and servers.
It was born out of various needs:
The last item, for example, led to the decision to not use the typical “headers” for requests and responses of the Gemini protocol. You know the ones, from both mails and HTTP. It does have status codes (but fewer than the web), but it doesn’t have methods such as GET, PUT or POST. It has MIME-types, but it doesn’t have content negotiation.
The Gemini format (also known as GemText) is particular in that it is line-oriented.
A line of text is a paragraph, to be wrapped by the client. It is is independent from the lines coming before or after it.
A list item starts with an asterisk and a space. Again, the rest of the line is the line item, to be wrapped by the client.
A link is never an inline link like it is for HTML: it’s simply a line starting with an equal-sign and a greater-than sign: “⇒”, a space, an URL, and some text.
It’s weird, it’s small, and it’s different.
## On Gemini
In spring 2017, yet another Twitter alternative was making the rounds, Mastodon.
On this site we have started discussing FreeSoftwareNextGen.
The creation story might appeal to you: “Eugen Rochko was annoyed with Twitter. The company had made a series of changes that he thought eroded the value of the service: limiting how big third-party applications could grow, for example, and implementing an algorithm-driven timeline that made Twitter feel uncomfortably similar to Facebook.” – Mastodon.social is an open-source Twitter competitor that’s growing like crazy
There are also some people that like how it is federated, allowing each server to use it’s own rules. Some people like this very much. “In fact, mastodon.social bans Nazis. Not even implicitly, but explicitly.” – Mastodon Is Like Twitter Without Nazis, So Why Are We Not Using It?
Other people don’t like how federation means that user names are not unique. Why do we keep implementing global names? This won’t scale for the next ten thousand years. Eventually, at some point in time, global names don’t make sense. First users get cool names like alexschroeder, everybody else gets awkwardnames like alexschroeder.1; federation helps. But not everybody likes it, e.g. Taking A Ride On Mastodon. One would think that some sort of context will always be required. The existence of other people called Alex does not limit us. Email addresses work the same. The appearance of big global namespaces like Gmail, Facebook and Twitter, and maybe AIM and ICQ before them, made all the difference. Suddenly people wanted global names. But IRC doesn’t have global names, mail doesn’t, people in real life don’t. The “problem” is expectation and the solution is expectation management. Multiple accounts on different instances are separate entities, like different email accounts. The fact that they belong to the same person is a property stored in contact databases of the people I know. Which is as it should be.
Federation and “losing” stuff from other instances is what will rescue the local and federated timelines. It’s what will allow us to build different communities. Some people have multiple Mastodon accounts on different instances in order to do precisely that. Conversely, they don’t like the followbots that “import” users from other instances even though nobody on the local instances subscribed to them.
Some links on the identity politics of Mastodon: What is GNU Social and is Mastodon Social a Twitter Clone? Or: Mastodon WTF timeline, about the growth of the Japanese Mastodon population and the cultural clash this caused. It also refers to this post on one of the subcultures that was strong when Mastodon started to take off, Mourning Mastodon.
Recommended reading: What I wish I knew before joining Mastodon. “Words in toots aren’t searchable yet, but hashtags are.” Users are also searchable, e.g. “@firstname.lastname@example.org”. If you need to pick an instance, here’s how to preview local and federated timelines of Mastodon instances without signing up, by Kevin Marks. The reason I think about the “right” instance is because I think a local timeline with folks that share a common interest makes it easier to find new people to follow. That’s harder to do if the local timeline is in a different language, or people who don’t share my interests. And since the locals decide which toots get imported from other instances the federated timeline is similarly affected. Picking the right instance is important.
Is there a “how to use micro blogging?” There probably isn’t. Ideally, you signed up to an instance that is sort of into something you are interested in, and then you look at the local timeline and reply to random people, and follow them if what they say is interesting enough for you to want more. And if that doesn’t bring you joy after a day, then short form blogging like Twitter, Mastodon, or GNU Social just isn’t for you in 2017?
Then again: How to Mastodon is an introduction for anybody new to the service.
As with all new networks, the network effect is strong: existing networks have a lot of value (“all my friends are there” or “I need it for business reasons”) and a new platform with zero contacts has zero value. So how do you create new connections?
The above is problematic for a new instance: you have few local users and they’re not following any remote people so all the timelines are empty. This is why people have written follow bots which do nothing but crawl the network and follow everybody. As they follow a ton of people, all their toots are pulled into the bot’s local instance, populating the federated timeline, allowing locals a better experience.
A FAQ of sorts, with interwoven comments, by “Dr. Edward Morbius”.
Some thoughts for the future: Mastodon Systemic Sustainability.
Interesting tootstorm by Edward Morbius.