Dear Peter and James. You raise some points about definitions and logic! :) I have mainly been explaining how a wiki is a type of software which can be used in more ways than the most well-known ways. That was the most relevant point about wikis, given the question was raised about how to do an online collaboration with more of a quality focus than most large-scale collaborations online. An example of a quality focused project already existing is the Henry project, but it is not currently a wiki. It seemed relevant to me to point to the question of software, because I know wiki software is not always considered for such purposes. Indeed I know that software itself is not often considered as a factor that might make it easier. I also had in mind past discussions about what has been difficult etc in examples such as the Henry project. I disagree with James that familysearch is a wiki. I think that is a confusing and unconventional way to use the word, but of course you are free to try this usage out and see if it sticks. If wiki means any group of people working together on the internet then it includes 3 people making a google spreadsheet together. I personally think if the wiki software is not involved, it is not a wiki. And I think I am right to say that this is the convention followed by most people. It is true the word can also be used to refer to one wiki, and by extension the people working together on one wiki site, using wiki software, the “community”. Obviously any community should ideally have some sort of shared aim, but I am also not sure I agree with James’ words “essentially a wiki since it shares a single view of "the truth" to which all members contribute”. If this means a wiki is any joint effort (and that the shared truth is just whatever the texts in the wiki end up saying) then I find this to be a similar mistake to saying familysearch is a wiki. (Definition too broad). Why use the word that way? If it means that people in a wiki all agree with each other, well then I think such things do not exist. (Definition too narrow.) I think neither definition is pointing at what is distinctive and recognizable in a wiki. It is not just any online collaboration. It is not a form of collaboration where there is a lot of unanimity. It does not have to be large scale collaboration. Again I think it is much more meaningful to say that the defining characteristic of wikis is the software platform, however it us used. There can be 2 people active on a wiki, or 2 million. The English language has other terms for other kinds of online editing. I also disagree with Peter that there is a logical error in saying that a wiki can chose its editors. The point being made was indeed that the procedure or policy concerning allowing new editors can be set in different ways, so I am confident everyone understood me, but there was also nothing wrong with the wording. Perhaps I am not the one who needs to think about this more. I have a clear vision of how wikis really work. :) At first the policy of who can edit can be set by founders, for example. The founders might never actually edit. They might set a constitution instead of making individual decisions. Later it might be decided by a bigger group of people who also may or may not be editors. Or indeed anyone may be allowed to join, like in Wikipedia, but then there may be rules about limited rights and more oversight for a period. But one thing for sure: when new editors are being chosen they will not be existing editors, and therefore there was no logical problem with saying that a wiki (wiki community) can chose editors (new editors) how it wants. The “wiki” of today can chose its editors of tomorrow and the two groups of people do not ever overlap at that moment of choice. :) Concerning chickens and eggs, I came into a pre-existing discussion where a project was already proposed concerning manor histories. During discussion I suggested that for example a project like the Henry project could be moved to wiki software also. It would not change the quality of that project. :) So there seem to be lots of chickens and eggs around. A wiki is just a software platform, a tool. You can use it, or you can find another one. I suggest not thinking too much about specific wikis we do not like for specific reasons. James, concerning the pre-1500 certification on wikitree (it is not on wikipedia) there is also a pre-1700 level. Both involve answering some questions about things like how to name a source properly and so on, and then having someone approve you. While fairly nominal, this has had a big impact on the pre-1500 editing quality. It will not be obvious yet, because this policy is only a few months old. Probably much more important was the decision to stop the possibility of editing en masse using large gedcom files. Now, in pre-1500 profiles you have to edit one person at a time. Just making it less interesting to the less-focused editors has a big impact. (Human nature, you know.) But you can see that these policies could be set much stricter in a really quality-focused wiki. Best Regards Andrew