"Half-wiki" is a temporary name for something like wiki, in the following respects:

It's not like wiki in the following respects:

Two reasons to make half-wiki:

A half-wiki would likely have:

See Also:

Example: Documenting UNIX Sockets

Here's what happened to me, that made me think: "This is what we need."

I was studying how TCP works, and how UNIX sockets work, and stuff like that. As you all know, I believe in WikiAsYouLearn. That is, if it takes me 30 minutes to learn something, I want to take 5 minutes out to summarize what I learned in PlainTalk, and at the same time help other people who are interested in the subject. (And, as usual, I'd like people to be able to link it up with their own writing, or copy it into a larger structure, or whatever- yadda yadda yadda.)

Is there a sockets wiki? No, there is not a sockets wiki.

Wikipedia? No, it's geared towards encyclopedia entries, which is very different than just "here's how it works, what it means to you, and how to put it to work for you." Besides, they've got their own whole entire government and accounts system and economy and what not. I don't necessarily want to enter the crucible, at this stage in the game.

Should I make a static web site? No, because then there's no possibility for integration, and it's all about the integration. Someone could have a beautiful amazing well integrated web site, all about what I've just written, but my page turns up high on Google because of prior PreferentialAttachment, and thus people are getting my poor cheesy page, when there's actually this whole encyclopedia and training system dedicated to just this topic two page views down in Google.

Should I make a wiki with comments only? No, because again: people then can't integrate the document, and they can't fix spelling mistakes for me, and they can't extend the document with pictures of their own making, and yadda yadda yadda. Pretty much all informational pages between people who like to share knowledge should be editable and inter-linkable. That's basically what it gets down to. The rest is details like hitching out spam, and setting up authorities over pages, so that the extremist Christians and the extremist Muslims don't destroy each others' pages.

Should I just make a normal wiki, and keep the notes there? No, because then: I have to babysit it. If you host 1 child and 20 wiki, then you will understand what it is to babysit wiki.

Babysitting wiki is- believe me- not scalable.

So, the answer to this, I believe, is "half-wiki."

Justification for the Single Person HalfWiki

I have a lot of things that I want to communicate. Those things have an integrity to them, and they are best rendered as a HyperText.

They should also be, to a degree, changed and ammended by the public.

However, I want to avoid contradiction to the core integrity. This is a complicated thing to say, so it will be explained in parts.

I want to:

These things are what are meant by the goal "avoid contradiction." Again it does not mean avoiding alternative perspectives. Rather, it means having an internal integrity of voice, style, message, and unity of theme. These things are not afforded (WhatIsAffordance) by a ScratchWiki, or CommunalWiki. And a ManagedWiki (aka ModeratedWiki?) is something that must be baby-sat. Those things are all focused on the society.

The HalfWiki exists so that an individual can communicate a large message (link to John Shirley's post about having difficulty blogging, because "my messages are too large," to paraphrase,) and yet a society still be able to integrate the corpus into TheContext?.

ThoughtStorms is an example of a wiki that may be better served as a HalfWiki. Most PersonalWiki should probably be HalfWiki.


The more I think about this, the more this seems the thing to do.

I mean, I want to start a collection of notes on protocols, and I want people to be able to edit them, and I want it to be hyperlinked.

But I don't want to have to babysit it.

It's an obvious starting point for a wiki.

This is something that we need.

Sure seems good to me !

I wonder if on way of doing it wouldn't be to have two wikis ? One "free for all" shadow wiki, not indexed by search engines; and one restricted one only editable by administrators. Then "all you need" (To take with a grain of salt, as it comes from someone not capable of implementing that yet) is a script to copy the contents of one wiki to the other. (To "approve" a revision, just go on the revison you like and send it to the main wiki.

Or, even better, only the shadow wiki is a wiki, the rest is a normal webpages. So the "copy/ approve" script just takes the html code of the wiki page and saves it on a static page (adapting the links in the process so they don't point in the wiki any more). That way you avoid the problem of administrators editing the "real" page and leaving the shadow wiki with an auld version.

I don't know how doable this is but it sounds better to me than keeping track of what version in the history is displayed by default, and on what situations you display the "sloppy" shadow version instead.

Another alternative is a StableView wiki, where only edits by the administrator(s) can replace the StableCopy of each page.

Emile! Good to hear from you here!

I dunno, though- I think I'd still feel like a babysitter, to a degree. :)

Well, we'll see. I'm giving more serious thought to implementing this idea soon.

A lot of what you are looking for is in meatball:EditThisPagePHP – it allows for total control of all the html presented to the user, comments editing (with diffs) by editors, control of html head (and tail) by supereditor, rss feed for new pages and one for diffs, blog-style trackbacks, etc.

I'm impressed! I've added a link to it above in the "See Also" section.


Define external redirect: ModeratedWiki TheContext OnlineFileStore LicenseSwitch PerPageLicensing

EditNearLinks: StableCopy StableView EditThisPagePHP HyperText