WhichWikiShouldWeUse

The other day, on a page I cannot find now, someone suggested that we might switch to a version of Wiki which supports arbitrary linking. The idea is that, particularly for an encyclopedia, having arbitrary links is better than the amusing but odd wiki capitalization conventions.

It strikes me that a very simple system would be to be able

to link like this: <<< Albania >>>.

Is there a wiki software that can support this? -- JimboWales

I just had another thought. Perhaps arbitrary linking using

<<< >>> should be limited to single words only. For example,

a list of UnitedStates might be written like this:

<<< Alabama >>>

<<< Alaska >>>

NorthDakota

<<< Wisconsin >>>

That is, if you use <<< >>>, the rule is that there has to be

only one word inside there.

The whole point here is to get away from weird names for single-word articles, things like NuPedia or AlaSka. Is

there a wiki that can do that? Or, should I just add the capability to this one? Or, is this whole idea really bad for some reason?

Hi Jimbo, I had made a suggestion a few days ago about perhaps switching to TWiki, as it is one of the more

polished (and well-documented) Wiki's. Twiki supports doing links as we've been doing here, as

well as forced links with double brackets. It's got gobs of other features... Check out

http://www.twiki.org. It's got pretty good docs, too. I highly recommend it.

-- Bryce

TWiki is a good wiki. (I prefer my own <nowiki>UseModWiki</nowiki>, but I'm slightly biased. :-) TWiki certainly has more documentation than <nowiki>UseModWiki</nowiki>. A third possibility is the <nowiki>MoinMoin</nowiki>: see http://moin.sourceforge.net/.

Adding word or <<<word>>> -style links to this wiki should not be very difficult. The main disadvantage of such links is that they would not be automatic. That is, if someone typed the plain word "Alabama", it would not become a link automatically. (The user would have to type something like "Alabama".) On the other hand, I'm not sure that every instance of simple words should be a link. Requiring explicit links might make the page look cleaner.

If this wiki community really wants more free-form links, I'd be willing to take a look at adding word-style links as an option in <nowiki>UseModWiki</nowiki>. --CliffordAdams

P.S. The "Please notice" text on the edit page is missing a closing tag. This makes any previews show up completely in bold text. [Please delete this note when the bug is fixed.]

This issue contains a conflict in the different uses of the system. On one hand we can use a simple enough syntax to mark the links like the funny capitalisation of letters and on the other hand the writer of each entry will have to put extra thought into what is a link and what is not.

I think that since the ambition is to build an encyklopedia we should go for the latter. An important thing with an encyklopedia is the words and their spelling and the funny capitalisation destroys the charm of the language. In some extreme cases there might even be a difference in the meanings because of the capitalisation. (Example from the top of my head: March n. month, march v. to walk). I would also like the possibility to write names with their correct spelling including the spaces like George W. Bush and North Dakota.

Actually I would like to make it even more complicated for the writer. I would like the WikiPedia to provide a possibility to link to the correct version of a word if words have several meanings like this: York (linked to YorkPA) is named after the English city (York linked to YorkEngland). and have this appear as "York (clickable) is named after the English city York (clickable)".

Since this makes it harder on the person writing the texts we need tools to help him. I have identified two important set of tools:

• First a tool that during preview goes through the text and signal all words that are present in the encyklopedia and thus are immediate candidates for linking. This is good as a help in identifing words or word combinations that are present elsewhere. The tool could also help him in choosing the correct version of the word.
• The second tool that is a tool that when we add a new word, goes through the whole wiki and finds all places where this word or combination of words is used without a link. Kind of like the search function except that it does not include the words linked here (or linked to some other entry in the case where we have several entries with the same name).

A third more elaborate tools would be for those that want to spend time fixing all the errors that the persons not running the second tool would insert into the database and that would be a tool that finds (at random or in some order) entries with words or word combinations that are now defined but not linked to.

I realise that my technically ordering and systematising mind is what makes me wish this but I can't get out of it. --LinusTolke