Dear Andrew, Thank you for your message. On 18/06/2016, Andrew Lancaster via <gen-medieval@rootsweb.com> wrote: > Dear Richard > > You are mixing two questions a bit in my opinion. Actually, my post included a question followed by some observations on one genealogical wiki. > 1. In terms of software platform, wikitree uses its own, which they > developed from the more standard ones, and I don't think anyone else can > use it for free. There are specific things they have developed like the > uncertain option, which are not standard on a wiki. There are also > things they removed from the standard, such as talk pages. Wikipedia is > the standard format of software available, even if not necessarily the > type of editing community you are looking for. If you look at Wikipedia > you'll see how the talk pages are like articles attached to articles > which record any discussed needed between editors. (Wikitree have pushed > all discussions to either small text boxes for comments on each article, > or separate forums which are not so simply connected to individual > articles.) Yes, I see that. I have continued to observe how Wikitree operates. > 2. The quality of editing, and of editors, is not connected to the > software. Your remark below is a bit like saying that you saw spelling > mistakes in an example of a Word document, so now you are concerned > about using Word? :) Well it is insofar as there is nothing built into the software to ensure that there is a documentary basis for toggling this item on or off. In other words, the software does not appear to have been designed to ensure proper standards are maintained in this instance. > Basically in the end wiki software is just like Word or Google Docs or > whatever: a platform for typing into. Specifically it was designed to > help groups work on something which is going to be in discrete > inter-linked articles, when the work will be done by multiple editors > who want to be able to work online and at the same time. It occurs to me that unless one is in on the planning stages for the creation of such wiki software one is likely to be limited in how one can expect it to be designed to meet the requirements of one's data, and sourcing thereof. > Here is the Wikipedia article for Wikis: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wiki > > It links to a list of typical software used. > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wiki_software > > The best known software is Mediawiki: > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki > > If you don't want to set-up a server yourself there are options like > Wikia ("wikifarms"). I notice that these days the mass of wikis using > this are connected to fan movements, like for example wikis about > fictional worlds in games, movies and books. (But that is clearly not > going to mean that any wiki using that software will become like a fan > wiki.) > > Here are more wikifarms: > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_wiki_hosting_services Thank you for this information. Richard C-Z