k (robot Erbij: it:Project:WikiWiki, ru:Project:Вики, sv:Project:WikiWiki (Import from wikitravel.org/nl))
(Some post import adaptions.)
Wiki maakt het mogelijk een voor willekeurige groep mensen om samen te werken aan de vulling van een Web site. Dat is wat we hier bij
Omdat de drempel om pagina's te bewerken ''zo laag'' is, voelen mensen zich snel in de positie (hopen we) om kleine bewerkingen te doen en verbeteringen aan te brengen of om zelfs compleet nieuwe artikelen aan te dragen. Wiki verlangt geen ingewikkeld registratie proces. Mensen kunnen een [[Project:Hoe maak ik een gebruikersaccount|gebruikers account]]aanmaken als ze een herkenbare identiteit in de gemeenschap willen hebben. Willen ze dat niet dan hoeft dat niet.
Sure, the abuser may just come back again and put back up their graffitti or whatever. But what seems to happen is that they don't, very often. They usually give up after one, or sometimes 2 or 3 tries.
Nobody's 100% sure why, but it seems like if there's a dedicated community that really cares about the Wiki project -- like [[Project:
See also: [[Project:Hoe ongewenste edits behandelen|Hoe omgaan met ongewenste bewerkingen]]
It happens fairly frequently that two or more contributors to a Wiki site don't see eye to eye. Person A may think that Joe's Restaurant in Crane's Butte, Florida has really great chili; Person B might think it tastes terrible. Whose version goes into
Wiki's iterative process has its advantages in these situations. Person A may add a listing for Joe's to the Crane's Butte guide, and B may edit the article afterwards and take it out. A may put it back in. B may take it back out again, or B may change the recommendation for the chili to a critique.
If it stays in this cycle, we have an [[Project:Bewerkoorlog|edit war]] -- people just editing a page over and over. What we usually do, however, is work out a '''compromise''' using the [[Project:using talk pages|talk page]] for that article.
Persons A and B would try to figure out what kind of wording meets our [[Project:Doelen en missers|goals]] and expresses a [[Project:neutral point of view|neutral point of view]]. We get to a point where the wording in the article is acceptable to everyone. Through editing and talking, we reach a '''[[Project:Consensus|consensus opinion]]''' -- a version of the guide that gives the [[Project:the
The downside of this method, though, is that daring, challenging, opinionated or controversial statements tend to get softened or elided out of articles. That's OK, though.
For this reason, most Wiki sites use a special editing format for their pages, called '''Wiki markup'''.
The details of the format differ from site to site, but usually it's a simple set of rules for formatting a document. In the [[Project:Wiki markup|Wiki markup]] that we use on
This can be kind of frustrating for people experienced with HTML, but it's really quite useful once you get the hang of it. And it does make the text of pages easier to manage when editing a page.
Another downside to Wiki markup is that you can't do as much with it as with HTML. The standard Wiki philosophy on this is to emphasize '''content over form''' -- that is, what really matters is what's ''in'' the article, not how it ''looks''. Just in case some really fancy formatting is needed for a page, however, the software we use for
Because ''everyone'' collaborates on ''every'' article, there's not a lot of concept of '''authorship''' in the Wiki world. In particular, on
Amazingly, clear, readable text comes out of the Wiki iterative process more often than not. The weird part is that this is no one author's voice (usually), but the melding of a few or maybe dozens of contributors' voices.
This isn't to say that people can't gain reputation and respect for their individual achievements and contributions to
Each contributor, when they create an article, licenses that work to the public using a '''Creative Commons''' license. The next contributor who edits that article creates a so-called "Derivative Work", which they own the copyright for, and which is in turn licensed to the public -- ''under the same license''.
The license we use is very liberal -- it allows anyone to copy, print, or distribute
So, technically, the latest contributor to an article "owns" the article as it stands. In another way, ''everyone'' owns
In practice, we ''all'' have a feeling of ownership for ''all'' of