This is not the page to post new encyclopedia content to or to ask general questions!
	This page is only for discussion of the article "Wiki" itself. You are probably looking for one of the following pages: How to create a page - How to create a new Wikipedia article page Help desk - For questions about Wikipedia and editing. Reference desk - For questions on factual topics (for example: Who is the pope?) Please reread Wikipedia:Questions for more details.

Wiki was one of the good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Article milestones Date Process Result June 16, 2004 Featured article candidate Not promoted March 28, 2006 Good article nominee Listed June 15, 2006 Good article reassessment Delisted August 13, 2009 Good article nominee Not listed A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on March 25, 2005. This article was on the Article Collaboration and Improvement Drive for the week of May 9, 2025. Current status: Delisted good article

This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Computing: Software High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Software (assessed as High-importance). Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Internet High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Internet on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.InternetWikipedia:WikiProject InternetTemplate:WikiProject InternetInternet High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Spoken Wikipedia This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles that are spoken on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Spoken WikipediaWikipedia:WikiProject Spoken WikipediaTemplate:WikiProject Spoken WikipediaSpoken Wikipedia

i believe we should not use a screenshot of wikipedia as a citation but as a noncitation. that would be okay on a wiki, but not on an encyclopedia or in mexico.

currently the picture is of wikipedia's "vitamin c" article. unless there are any valid philosophical disagreements, i will take the inwanted inferior liberty of changing it to something from another wiki on tuesday.

--Harlequence 14:19, 7 July 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Harlequence (talk • contribs)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Wiki/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Just a few things that need to be fixed before this is a GA:

• Fewer lists
  • Could you specify which lists strike you as problematic? Vicenarian ^{(T · C)} 20:28, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Looks OK to me now. -- Beland (talk) 17:10, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Fewer one-sentence paragraphs
  • Again, which in particular strike you as problematic? Vicenarian ^{(T · C)} 20:28, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• History doesn't mention Wikipedia. Maybe I am vain but I think this is important?
  • History of wikis is the main article and includes detail about the history of Wikipedia. Wikipedia is also mentioned (and wikilinked) in the lead and "Communities" section of this article. Vicenarian ^{(T · C)} 20:28, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree; Wikipedia is probably the most important thing that has ever happened to wikis, other than their invention. I added a quick mention to that paragraph. -- Beland (talk) 15:50, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Shii (tock) 16:38, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my responses above. Thank you for your time! Vicenarian ^{(T · C)} 20:28, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The "Characteristics" list could be written in non-list form. Ditto with "research communities". All one-sentence paragraphs are frowned upon unless necessary. Shii (tock) 03:46, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to close this since there have been no further responses. Shii (tock) 23:28, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Alignment of the rows within the table, giving examples of MediaWiki syntax vs Equivalent HTML and it's Rendered output would give greater clarity — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.106.149.130 (talk) 07:31, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why is this article semi-protected? Whatever the reason, surly this insanely ironic fact is worthy of mention in the 'Trust and security' section as a prime example of the problems with wiki's (talk) 20:48, 21 July 2009 (UTC)neil[reply]

In Reference [4] of the entry for "Wiki," it is noted that "wiki" is Hawaiian for "fast." More to the point, "wiki" is Hawaiian for "quick." Actually, "wiki" is a borrowed word in Hawaiian. It is a Hawaiianized pronunciation of the English work "quick." Doubling a word in Hawaiian intensifies it; therefore, "nui" is "big," and "nuinui" is "huge," and "wiki" is "quick," and "wikiwiki" is "Quick! Quick!" or "very quickly!" Hleatherse (talk) 15:53, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The sentence that defines this term ("Wiki") defines it using by using itself. I'm not convinced this makes the article useful. Using a term to define itself has been identified as a "no-no" in each language and class where I've been a student, for -- a long time.

I intend to change it as soon as I find a defnition that is useful. The list of examples for describing "useful" 1) won't have "useful" in it, and 2) will allow it to be compared with, for example, "Content Management System". Kernel.package (talk) 17:26, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how it's recursive. It uses the term "wiki software", but then immediately goes on to say what that software allows people to do. --Cybercobra (talk) 18:07, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can see how it could be read as ambiguous; it's not 100% clear whether a wiki is a subset of all sites running wiki software (namely, that subset that "allows the easy creation and editing of any number of interlinked Web pages..."), or if that clause refers to all web sites running wiki software. It may be better to reverse the order of the clauses: "A wiki is a website that allows the easy creation and editing of any number of interlinked web pages, powered by wiki software." Powers ^T 13:36, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some people call this wiki because it is quite to say wikipedia. Wikipedia is a website where you can find a lot of information and things from the past. To every person that goes to www.wikipedia.com, please do so every day of the week (except Saturday and Sunday of course.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.250.155.203 (talk) 09:32, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think the section on trustworthiness misses the point. The point it seems to make is "this should not work at all, but it kinda looks like it seems like it might, at least so far, so meh." Not exactly a ringing endorsement.

I would argue it will work, and it will be trustworthy, and that this type of system has been under test for about 4 billion years. Life evolved to the working examples that it is through random mutation and natural selection. Wikis evolve through (usually) non-random and intelligent mutation and (usually) intelligent selection based on facts. So it should not only work as well as evolution, it should work far better and far faster. Just like there are people who assume evolution will not work, there are people who will assume a Wiki will not work, and probably for the same reasons (well, other than religion) -- because it seems complicated an esoteric with so much seemingly left to freedom and chance, when in fact the wikis are constantly selected back to the facts. There may be some messiness and missteps along the way, but both systems will eventually arrive at working solutions.

I suppose, however, that at any given instant a wiki could have been vandalized and not fixed yet, so thus untrustworthy. Unlikely, but quite possible. So, perhaps the original section would be accurate, barring some technological solution. Like coloring any change that is less than 24 hours old, or not reviewed or something. Meh. Skintigh (talk) 15:12, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you remove the paragraph quote from Lars Aronsson. It is pointless, adds nothing new that hasn't just been said the line before, and is not ecyclopedia style.

Lars Aronsson, a data systems specialist, summarizes the controversy as follows: “ Most people, when they first learn about the wiki concept, assume that a Web site that can be edited by anybody would soon be rendered useless by destructive input. It sounds like offering free spray cans next to a grey concrete wall. The only likely outcome would be ugly graffiti and simple tagging, and many artistic efforts would not be long lived. Still, it seems to work very well.[7] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.244.34.116 (talk) 10:33, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In what way is it not "e[n]cyclopedia style"? Powers ^T 15:24, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The information in the first paragraph contradicts that in the third one. Unless there's objection, I'll remove the information in the third paragraph. --TippTopp (talk) 14:09, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It would seem that.. the original Hawaiian is 'wiki'.. then a wiki is a 'wicky'.. and then wikipedia is 'wicca-pedia' for some reason. That's lazy American pronunciation for you. Giving the schwa more business... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.73.70.113 (talk) 03:16, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki can also mean Wikipedia. For ex: If i type banana wiki, then i will be taken to the banana article on Wikipedia. -- User:Fdasfdsa12342 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fdsafdsa12342 (talk • contribs) 21:06, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's just because Wikipedia is by a far shot the most popular wiki out there. Sorafune +1 04:51, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a way to edit a movie or video by adding your own drawing? For example; you make a video of a stuffed dragon flying then you want to add flames coming out of its mouth. Can you do it? If you can, how?how do you make it show up and go away on time? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.240.251.67 (talk) 19:30, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't about the article, is it? Most wikis don't even offer video editing capabilities, so I don't think think this is something we can help you with. Reach Out to the Truth 23:05, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]