Talk:WikkaWiki

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Is WikkaWiki still under active development?

As of 2007-11-16 09:22, http://wikkawiki.org is down. I checked a few days ago and saw a Go Daddy page asserting that the domain registration had lapsed. Anyone know the current status of this project? --hakamadare 14:31, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

The main artice, as well as several other sites, state that 1.1.6.3 is the latest version. The most recent available on SourceForge is 1.1.6.2 from 7-3-2006. Is there any information on the location of the latest version? --CRuss 15:54, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Quoting from the SF.net listing: "As of 2006-07-19 09:37, this project may now be found at: http://wikkawiki.org". The SF page is maintained for historical reasons but all releases after 1.1.6.2 can only be found on the main WikkaWiki website. --DarTar (talk) 00:14, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

After some more investigation I found a developer blog posting in google cache talking about DNS problems.

DNS problem solved: wikkawiki.org is back!
We’ve been experiencing some annoying downtime since Sunday due to a problem with our DNS servers. As I write this wikkawiki.org and all its subdomains work as usual. If you still can’t access the WikkaWiki website, this may be due to some minor delay in the propagation of the DNS configuration, so make sure you check back in a few hours time. Many thanks to all the users who promptly got in touch to report the problem, Wikka and its development team are alive and well again :)
Published: November 12, 2007 / 4pm
Author: DarTar

GoDaddy whois lists the expiration date in 2008.

Registered through: GoDaddy.com, Inc.
Domain Name: WIKKAWIKI.ORG
Created on: 06-Nov-05
Expires on: 06-Nov-08
Last Updated on: 12-Nov-07

I hope this indicates ongoing problems with their DNS and not a loss of the domain. -- CRuss (talk) 16:55, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

The issues were due to an unfortunate series of problems with WikkaWiki's hoster and domain registrar. They have now been solved and the Wikka Dev Team is the owner of the domain. --DarTar (talk) 00:14, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Everything is back, there is a good explanation on their blog. --CRuss (talk) 22:26, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Is a Wiki a CMS?

User 84.137.248.182 has recently removed the Open Source CMS category link from this page without giving any further explanation other than a short edit comment. I'm reverting this edit and asking this editor to make a stronger case supporting his or her decision. Here's the reasons why I think wiki engines can be listed in a CSM category:

  • Wiki engines are by definition Content Management Systems. A CMS is defined in WP as (quote) a computer software system used to assist its users in the process of content management. CMS facilitates the organization, control, and publication of a large body of documents and other content, such as images and multimedia resources.
  • Wiki engines are listed in popular CMS directories (see for instance http://www.opensourcecms.com/)
  • Several wiki engines are listed in the Open Source CMS category, including MediaWiki, i.e. the engine running Wikipedia. If there is a decision establishing the fact that wikis are not CMS, than all the items listed in this category should be removed accordingly after a general discussion on the appropriate page. The fact that the removal of this category link from the WikkaWiki article is the only edit ever done by User 84.137.248.182 makes it quite suspicious.

--DarTar 11:33, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] From VfD

Notability? Mikkalai 01:31, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

See also:

  • Seems to have a fair number of google hits. Remove feature list, merge and redirect to Wackowiki. --Korath会話 00:04, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • Yep, you got it right. The number is fair indeed: exactly 104 hits (using your link), if you know how to count properly. Mikkalai 01:14, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • I'd like to have some explanations on this deletion proposal. I've written the first draft of this page, since it was marked as one of the missing pages in the list of wakka-forks. I think I've given an objective description of the features of this engine, much as the other engines listed in WikiSoftware do. I've added to the list of wakkaforks also Wikini (as a missing page), which is another major wakka-fork. Can someone please explain to me what the Remove feature list, merge and redirect to Wackowiki proposal is meant to do? And, please, since I'm totally new to wikipedia guidelines, would someone please tell me how the notability/google hits criteria work? Are you assessing the legitimacy of a Wikipedia entry on the basis of its search results? And if this is the case, are you evaluating the software [popularity] or the mere number of occurrences of the WikkaWiki keyword? -- Dario
    • If both WackoWiki and WikkaWiki are proposed for deletion, why not also CitiWiabout:blankki and UniWakka? They're all forks of the original WakkaWiki as outlined in their pages while their features lists make the differences clear. Removing features lists (as proposed by Korath) would make things terribly hazy because then you can no longer see the different directions in which these Wakka forks are evolving. -- They're all forks, but they're all different (different enough for people to choose one implementation over another based on their features and their own requirements) - so keep all of them or remove all of them. But then if you remove all of them - remove Wakka as well. Wakka no longer exists as a project (although it's still used). (Then what will you do with the rest of the PHP-based Wikis? Why keep those but not, say, UniWakka?) If anything should be deleted it's Wakka itself, but not the forks that live on in quite different identities now. -- JavaWoman

Since you seem to know what you are talking about, why don't you write a summary article for wakka with all its forks, with common feature table for easy comparison, if you really want help users? If wakka is so lightweight and easily extendable, there should be ziillions of forks, in every universioty dorm. Claims of notability must be supported. Mikkalai 16:59, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

  • Has it crossed your mind Mr. Mikkalai, that not all of the Wakka-forks implemented are even visible to Google and other SEs because they are implemented in an intranet that is not visible to the outside world? And that they are often chosen for such a purpose because they are indeed lightweight? And shouldn't claims of "non-notability" when used for a PfD be supported? I have not seen any objective criteria yet. On the other hand I have seen a lot of derogatory language from you that is quite insulting and completely unnecessary if there are indeed objective criteria - such language makes your arguments all the less believable. That said, I'm quite prepared to write an article comparing different Wakka forks - I agree that would be quite useful - but I emphatically don't agree the separate articles should be deleted, they should be merely edited. -- JavaWoman
  • Keep - David Gerard 23:03, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Extreme keep! Notable! --L33tminion | (talk) 03:51, Dec 25, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Whether or not the software is being actively worked on, the contents of this article are helpful to a reader looking for an overview of development efforts in the wiki software field. — DV 04:34, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)


[edit] Tone Cleanup

Superm401 suggests a tone cleanup for this article. Could you please give some specific suggestions? Thanks --DarTar 12:54, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

To me, it read a bit like a press release. Because the product is notable, the cleanup isn't a very high priority, but it still isn't NPOV. Sentences like "WikkaWiki's flexibility and easy adaptability to the user's needs - including the nonprofessional developer's - are among the most prominent and appreciated features of this engine"[emphasis in original], while less blatant then some articles here, are clearly POV. I just wanted to remind people to work on it at some point. In the meantime, it's biased, but still provides some useful information. Superm401 | Talk 15:20, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
I removed the most biased sentences and tried to clean up the general tone --DarTar