Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Wiki.js

wiki.js.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–200 of 213 posts

Re: Wiki.js

#191

Post by rpdillon »

hn_check wrote: post #168
nl wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree with this for the most part. I've thought about knowledge management a lot over the last 20 years, since I built a Wiki/bug tracker system (this was before anything except Bugzilla existed). I think knowledge management systems can work if the "management" side is a side effect of their use.

Absolutely, if management is entirely invested in it, and it becomes a mandatory part of the process (e.g. updating the wiki is a part of a release or new build), it can be a critical resource. The problem is that the organic nature of wikis lead to people believing that it will just emerge, in the same way that the relatively unstructured wikipedia eventually became a critical resource. But citing wikipedia is often…

I agree. The biggest difference that came to mind when I read your comment is that a personal wiki doesn't have the economy of scale that Wikipedia has. With Wikipedia, the effort of hundreds to organize everything can benefit millions. With a personal wiki, the dynamic is different. I 100% agree that there's a real risk of a 'honeymoon period' giving a false sense of ROI, and I've fallen victim to early enthusiasm about various organizations strategies that ended up not lasting more than a month. I've resorted to a to-do list and a chronological work log as mechanisms that require little organizational investment but yield many of the benefits of a more sophisticated system.

Re: Wiki.js

#192

Post by cxr »

fungos wrote: post #189
cxr wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If they are the sole copyright owners (no external contribution) That's not the scenario gary-kim laid out; you've failed to satisfy the constraints in the premise.

Read better, I'm not replying to him. I agree with him.

Reply better.

I know who you're replying to. The premise that gary-kim laid out is still the relevant context. The hypothetical you're laying out, on the other hand, is not relevant, it's at odds with that premise (not in "agree[ment] with him"), and it's derailing the thread. (Which is the same reason your "future versions, not past versions" is downvoted, for that matter.)

Re: Wiki.js

#193

Post by codezero »

kmill wrote: post #187
codezero wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I assume it evolved not long after guns existed, and likely grew in the military :)

"Shooting yourself in the foot," sure, but if you look up "footgun" it seems to only be programming slang. What I was suggesting with the above comment was that this sort of list might have popularized the metaphor of shooting yourself in the foot in programming, which was then was subjected to hacker-style word manipulation.

Ah fair, yep, that's probably right.

Re: Wiki.js

#194

Post by cxr »

hombre_fatal wrote: post #146
ttsda wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The skepticism is not unwarranted. Borrowing your exercise example, it would be like saying you do X pushups every day and it changed your life, and then saying you've been doing that for a couple days. Wikis are infamous for not working out on the long term.

I have 10 years experience of editing wikis. I just never thought to start one for myself until two days ago. If there's something so fundamentally different about running a wiki for yourself on localhost vs a collaboration like Wikipedia or UESP, then why not put some skin into the game and make that point? That sounds like an interesting topic. I don't even understand the "skepticism". MediaWiki is one of the ubiqu…

https://pchiusano.github.io/2014-10-11/defensive-writing.htm...

Re: Wiki.js

#195

Post by fungos »

cxr wrote: post #192
fungos wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Read better, I'm not replying to him. I agree with him.

Reply better. I know who you're replying to. The premise that gary-kim laid out is still the relevant context. The hypothetical you're laying out, on the other hand, is not relevant, it's at odds with that premise (not in "agree[ment] with him"), and it's derailing the thread. (Which is the same reason your "future versions, not past versions" is downvoted, for that matter.)

Right. _they_ were not meant to be Wiki.js, but ANY open source project. And was a meant to indicate the same subject as _any_ in this reply:

> I don't think _any_ of the mainstream open-source licenses allow you to retroactively revoke or change the license.

My reply is in this context, not in the parent's parent which you mean as _relevant_ context. If I wanted to include the parent context the reply would be more specific. This was a direct reply to a specific message. This is a very normal way to reply on the internet, HN is not special.

Re: Wiki.js

#196

Post by mekster »

cxr wrote: post #170
mekster wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's a guarantee that the project will remain open source What are you talking about? They can change the license to a closed one from a certain version in the future.

> They can change the license to a closed one from a certain version in the future. You're right if and only if by "they" you mean every copyright holder whose contributions would exist in the future version (including, say, the contributions of the very person you're responding to). But if by "they" you mean the project leaders acting without the cooperation of everyone who holds copyright, then that's a no.

It was easy to tell it's almost one man's job if you look at the level of integrity the software has.

https://github.com/Requarks/wiki/graphs/contributors

Main guy commiting 600k lines and the second most committed guy 450 lines.

So yeah, it wouldn't take him a whole lot of time if he really wanted to change the license by removing all the others' commits and rewriting it by himself.

Also, what does AGPL has anything to do with keeping the license open sourced?

Re: Wiki.js

#197

Post by cxr »

fungos wrote: post #195
cxr wrote: post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Reply better. I know who you're replying to. The premise that gary-kim laid out is still the relevant context. The hypothetical you're laying out, on the other hand, is not relevant, it's at odds with that premise (not in "agree[ment] with him"), and it's derailing the thread. (Which is the same reason your "future versions, not past versions" is downvoted, for that matter.)

Right. _they_ were not meant to be Wiki.js, but ANY open source project. And was a meant to indicate the same subject as _any_ in this reply: > I don't think _any_ of the mainstream open-source licenses allow you to retroactively revoke or change the license. My reply is in this context, not in the parent's parent which you mean as _relevant_ context. If I wanted to include the parent context the reply would be more…

Try rewriting history if you want, but the thread goes off-topic as soon as mekster suggests the project change the license, and your reply there only feeds into it. And it still doesn't explain how you can claim that your comment was meant to "agree" with gary-kim's.

> My reply is in this context, not in the parent's parent

The parent's parent at that point is... your comment, "For future versions, not past versions," which was off-topic.

> This is a very normal way to reply on the internet

Indeed, it's common for people to lose the plot in the comments section and then get defensive (and smug) while being wrong, e.g.:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23250829

Re: Wiki.js

#198

Post by fungos »

cxr wrote: post #192
fungos wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Read better, I'm not replying to him. I agree with him.

Reply better. I know who you're replying to. The premise that gary-kim laid out is still the relevant context. The hypothetical you're laying out, on the other hand, is not relevant, it's at odds with that premise (not in "agree[ment] with him"), and it's derailing the thread. (Which is the same reason your "future versions, not past versions" is downvoted, for that matter.)

I can't reply you further there: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23911564

So you'll be finally satisfied: You're exactly right, you were always right. You know better and are an example of forum keep-on-thread internet commentator. Congratulations.

(Kidding, in reality you're too pedantic which makes you just annoying, have fun arguing alone)

Re: Wiki.js

#199

Post by cxr »

fungos wrote: post #198
cxr wrote: post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Reply better. I know who you're replying to. The premise that gary-kim laid out is still the relevant context. The hypothetical you're laying out, on the other hand, is not relevant, it's at odds with that premise (not in "agree[ment] with him"), and it's derailing the thread. (Which is the same reason your "future versions, not past versions" is downvoted, for that matter.)

I can't reply you further there: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23911564 So you'll be finally satisfied: You're exactly right, you were always right. You know better and are an example of forum keep-on-thread internet commentator. Congratulations. (Kidding, in reality you're too pedantic which makes you just annoying, have fun arguing alone)

That's HN's anti-flamewar mechanism kicking in to get people to slow down and stop firing off comments from the hip.

Re: Wiki.js

#200

Post by mekster »

cxr wrote: post #197
fungos wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right. _they_ were not meant to be Wiki.js, but ANY open source project. And was a meant to indicate the same subject as _any_ in this reply: > I don't think _any_ of the mainstream open-source licenses allow you to retroactively revoke or change the license. My reply is in this context, not in the parent's parent which you mean as _relevant_ context. If I wanted to include the parent context the reply would be more…

Try rewriting history if you want, but the thread goes off-topic as soon as mekster suggests the project change the license, and your reply there only feeds into it. And it still doesn't explain how you can claim that your comment was meant to "agree" with gary-kim's. > My reply is in this context, not in the parent's parent The parent's parent at that point is... your comment, "For future versions, not past versions…

> mekster suggests the project change the license

When have I suggested the project change the license??? I only said it is possible.

Post reply on HN