First let me apologize to anyone taking the second and third sentences to be
anything other than a lame attempt of sarcastic humor. I tried to indicate that
the definition of wiki can be interpreted different than mine. I don't want to
turn this into a flame war. It is a pet peeve of mine and when I find web sites
labeled as a wiki, that are not a wiki (by my definition of wiki) I tend to
point it out. I clearly didn't state enough that this is "IMHO". While I stand
behind my opinion I don't want to be a jerk about it. SLDR(Stephen L. De
Rudder) > From: sld...@hotmail.com
> To: user@ant.apache.org
> Subject: RE: ANT Wiki isn't wiki
> Date: Sun, 15 Apr 2012 19:16:16 -0500
>
>
> By my definition of wiki it should allow all users to edit any page or to
> create a new page. Oh, that also happens to be Ward Cunningham's definition,
> and he created the first wiki and defined it that way. Oh,
> merriam-webster.com also agrees with my definition. I realize that your
> definition of wiki may be different, and I am not trying to get into a I am
> right your wrong (there is plenty of room for different interpretations). In
> my opinion a wiki should allow all users to edit and create pages and if it
> doesn't it shouldn't be called a wiki. I also understand that it may be a
> wiki (by my definition) to a select group of people that could be made
> available (as a non-wiki) for a larger group of people. To the larger group
> of people it should be called something else. Maybe if enough people
> research it and come of with my interpretation of the definition of wiki then
> maybe consider renaming it (or not). Regardless it would be nice to have a
> publicly editable site for contributors like me to contribute to (besides
> this mailing list). SLDR(Stephen L. De Rudder)> Date: Sun, 15 Apr 2012
> 19:30:32 -0400
> > Subject: Re: ANT Wiki isn't wiki
> > From: j...@attardi.net
> > To: user@ant.apache.org
> >
> > A wiki doesn't have to be publicly editable to be a wiki. Wikipedia may
> > operate like that, but there are plenty of projects whose wikis are only
> > editable by registered users.
> > On Apr 15, 2012 6:32 PM, "Stephen L. De Rudder" <sld...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > The ant wiki isn't a wiki. It seems like most if not all the pages can not
> > > be modified by anonymous contributers. Please don't call it a wiki if
> > > people are not allowed to contribute. I wanted to add a page about the OS
> > > condition tag, but I couldn't. The manual only goes into detail about the
> > > <OS family="xxx"> stuff but ignores the name, arch, and version. It took
> > > me
> > > a while but I found that those seem to be populated from the java
> > > properties os.name, os.arch, and os.version. I think others could have
> > > benifited from my research if your wiki was a wiki. SLDR(Stephen L. De
> > > Rudder) I can't complain too much, the company I work for created a public
> > > wiki too. They do allow paying maintence and support customers to request
> > > access so they can contribute to the wiki (none to my knoledge have).
> > > After
> > > enough complaining (mostly be me) we are about to remove the wiki and
> > > rollout an expanded faq/blog site.
>
