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

Wikenigma is an encyclopedia for topics with unknown answers

wikenigma.org.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 77 posts

Re: Wikenigma is an encyclopedia for topics with unknown answers

#33

Post by davidy123 »

They really should NOT make this look like wikipedia, even if it's similar in concept. Wikipedia (and its software, mediawiki) are three things: 1. content that is generated, 2. the community and culture and 3. a standard toolset. This site has very little in common with any of these, and especially the third point. The visual cue of the site's appearance indicates at least 3, but they aren't even using Mediawiki software.

Re: Wikenigma is an encyclopedia for topics with unknown answers

#35

Post by nl »

mdp2021 wrote: post #29
agucova wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

More recently, "wiki" seems to be a more concrete concept: a collaboratively edited website, managed by its audience [1]. The project references Wikipedia as an inspiration, and I hope it can live up to similar ideals. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wiki

> collaboratively edited website Yes, but there are parts of it in terminology awareness gone slightly messy: in 'wikipedia', the educational part is in '-poedia' ("children", hence "learners"); 'wiki-' reflects the concept that the operation on the content must be apt to be quick - which is exactly the direct interpretation that appears in your parent post («a contact form just to edit an article doesn't really live…

Ward Cunningham's wiki at c2.com was a simple user editable wiki: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/WikiWikiWeb

I don't know what all your linguistics analysis is trying to achieve other than disguise the fact that this isn't a wiki.

Re: Wikenigma is an encyclopedia for topics with unknown answers

#36

Post by mdp2021 »

nl wrote: post #35
mdp2021 wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> collaboratively edited website Yes, but there are parts of it in terminology awareness gone slightly messy: in 'wikipedia', the educational part is in '-poedia' ("children", hence "learners"); 'wiki-' reflects the concept that the operation on the content must be apt to be quick - which is exactly the direct interpretation that appears in your parent post («a contact form just to edit an article doesn't really live…

Ward Cunningham's wiki at c2.com was a simple user editable wiki: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/WikiWikiWeb I don't know what all your linguistics analysis is trying to achieve other than disguise the fact that this isn't a wiki.

> trying to achieve

Intellectual curiosity, applied to the care of ideas.

«Disguise»: I have no idea what you are talking about. My only interest on whether the submitted site falls into the category of "wiki" can be linguistic - not about the site itself (of interest respectfully relative).

Re: Wikenigma is an encyclopedia for topics with unknown answers

#37

Post by groffee »

davidy123 wrote: post #33

They really should NOT make this look like wikipedia, even if it's similar in concept. Wikipedia (and its software, mediawiki) are three things: 1. content that is generated, 2. the community and culture and 3. a standard toolset. This site has very little in common with any of these, and especially the third point. The visual cue of the site's appearance indicates at least 3, but they aren't even using Mediawiki sof…

Mediawiki is some of the worst software ever developed, no sane person would use it. This site is using https://dokuwiki.org

Re: Wikenigma is an encyclopedia for topics with unknown answers

#38

Post by beardyw »

tgv wrote: post #30
MrBlueIncognito wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's marked as Known Unknowns, but what is unknown? The infinite digits of pi that we don't know. But we do know that they exist, so pi, or any other irrational number, will aptly be called a "known unknown." > Virtually all numbers are irrational. For every n irrational numbers you name, I can name n+1 rationals. There is no firm basis to the argument that there are somehow more irrational numbers than rational nu…

Do you reject Cantor's proof then? That takes mathematical bollocks.

Without wishing to defend it, the gotcha here is "numbers you name". Rational numbers are "named" by putting together a string of digits. That is not possible for the irrationals so the only ones we can name are a handful with alphabetic names. There are more sheep in a field than those.

I think Cantor can rest peacefully.

Re: Wikenigma is an encyclopedia for topics with unknown answers

#40

Post by davidy123 »

groffee wrote: post #37
davidy123 wrote: post #33

They really should NOT make this look like wikipedia, even if it's similar in concept. Wikipedia (and its software, mediawiki) are three things: 1. content that is generated, 2. the community and culture and 3. a standard toolset. This site has very little in common with any of these, and especially the third point. The visual cue of the site's appearance indicates at least 3, but they aren't even using Mediawiki sof…

Mediawiki is some of the worst software ever developed, no sane person would use it. This site is using https://dokuwiki.org

I don't love mediawiki software, starting with PHP, but it's indisputable that it is one of the most successful software platforms in the world, and it has quite an extensive ecosystem.

But thank you for pointing out that it's docuwiki that is attempting to inappropriately ride the mediawiki coattails and muddling use.

The fact this site is starting out without the basic feature of categories is a grave mistake. Maybe docuwiki edits them differently, but having clicky forms for every data field is also contrary to how wp became successful.

Because it's not using mediawiki, it will not be any parallel in development to wp, which is also a grave starting mistake.

Post reply on HN