'''Wiki''' is een techniek waarmee gemeenschappelijk een website kan worden onderhouden en bewerkt.
Het idee is erg eenvoudig. Op iedere pagina van de website is een ''
Bewerk'' knop. Iedere internetter die op deze knop drukt kan vervolgens de inhoud van de pagina aanpassen in zijn browser. Als ze daarna op ''Pagina opslaan'' klikken dan is het resultaat per direct op de website te zien.
Natuurlijk zal iedereen die wel eens op het Internet is geweest in zijn vuistje lachen en zeggen: Hahaha, beter en beter? In je dromen!. Dat zullen we dus nog wel eens zien. In de echte wereld heeft ieder artikel binnen de kortste keren allerlei graffiti erop."
This is a pretty reasonable concern. Of course, the Internet being what it is, this happens all the time. One of the great things about Wiki, however, is that ''anyone'' can change an article back to how it was before the abuse. Just as ''everyone'' is responsible for writing and editing the Wiki, ''everyone'' is responsible for protecting it from malicious abuse.
Fixing an abusive edit -- whether graffitti, an advertisement, or whatever -- is ''just as easy'' as making the abusive edit in the first place. We keep a [[Project:page history help|history]] of every version of every page, that anyone can look at. So, if a page just says, "I M THE GRATEST", another user can check the history, find the previous version, check that it's worthwhile, and then [[Project:Hoe een pagina terugbrengen|een bewerking ongedaan makenrevert]] to that version. Easy as pie!
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:Wikireizigers|Wikireizigers]] care about Wikivoyage -- then their efforts will outweigh any single abuser's determination. Abusers just don't care enough to spend a lot of time editing a page over and over just to see '''BIG BOB WUZ HERE''' on the Internet. It's not really worth the effort, and it's not that much of a challenge.
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 Wikivoyage?
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 reiziger comes first|reiziger]] the best information they need to make their own decision.
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. Wikivoyage isn't an entertainment or fiction Web site. It's a '''travel guide''', a reference book that gives practical, factual information to the reiziger. It may not be as flamboyant as something written by a single person, but we think it will still have valuable, readable, accurate travel information.
The standard Web format for pages is HTML. HTML tends to be pretty wordy, and it can be hard to pick out the "real" parts of an article from all the HTML gobbledy-gook. This discourages people from editing pages -- if they can't easily change the spelling of a word, they're probably not going to try.
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 Wikivoyage, for example, you can put a word in ''italics'' by putting two apostrophes (<nowiki>''</nowiki>) around it.
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 Wikivoyage ''does'' allow some HTML to be used. We try to [[Project:Vermijd HTML|avoid it]] unless really, really necessary.
Because ''everyone'' collaborates on ''every'' article, there's not a lot of concept of '''authorship''' in the Wiki world. In particular, on Wikivoyage, we try to avoid using [[Project:Persoonlijke voornaamwoorden voor de eerste persoon|Persoonlijke voornaamwoorden voor de eerste persoon]] ("I", "we", "me") or qualifying statements with personal opinions or specific experience ("I think that...", "In my opinion", "When I was in [[Beijing]] last fall...").
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 Wikivoyage. We appreciate every bit of information, but the more people contribute, the better their reputation in our community. People who've done exceptional jobs writing, editing, and organizing a particular part of the site tend to gain status, and others will defer to their opinion. But they don't "own" any part of Wikivoyage, and they can't prevent anyone else from contributing. It's a win-win situation.
Another part of Wiki is that there's a distribution of '''ownership'''. We use a [[Project:copyleft|copyleft]] license to dot our i's and cross our t's with respect to copyright.
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 Wikivoyage articles in any way they want. The only rules are that they have to give '''attribution''' to the contributors who made it, and they have to '''share and share alike''' -- they can't keep other people from copying, printing, or distributing the articles in the same way.
So, technically, the latest contributor to an article "owns" the article as it stands. In another way, ''everyone'' owns Wikivoyage articles -- they can do practically anything an "owner" would do with their own stuff.
In practice, we ''all'' have a feeling of ownership for ''all'' of Wikivoyage. Wikireizigers put work into all parts of the site, doing what they can to make it a better travel guide. We're all proud of the work as a whole, and of the part we played in making it.
*[http://www.emacswiki.org/cgi-bin/community/SiteMap CommunityWiki] is a fine Wiki site about online communities.
*[http://www.usemod.com/cgi-bin/mb.pl?MeatballWiki MeatballWiki] is a Wiki in the same vein, with some different attitudes and perhaps a more academic slant.
*[http://dmoz.org/Computers/Software/Groupware/Wiki/ Wiki topic] at [http://dmoz.org/ Open Directory]