Talk:wiki

vici?

vici, is it a proper latin noun for wiki? — This unsigned comment was added by 217.225.237.176 (talk) at 22:27, 1 December 2003 (UTC).

More to the point, is it Latin at all? It's sham Latin or new Latin in the style of the Vatican's lexicon of Latin terms for recent inventions and concepts, but I doubt that Julius Caesar ever used it... :) — This unsigned comment was added by Paul G (talk • contribs) at 14:21, 18 December 2003 (UTC).

Cute :p Yes, it's a "new Latin" word, a straightforward transliteration, and sees use in, e.g., Vicipædia. —Muke Tever 02:20, 8 May 2004 (UTC)

Etymology, or language section?

Is that an etymology at the top or entries for two different languages? It needs to be clearly reformatted. — Hippietrail 01:45, 8 May 2004 (UTC)

It appears to be an entry for a Maori word and the etymology of the English word "wiki" (for which no definition was given). I've taken a shot at clearing it up, but I don't know offhand how to define the word. —Muke Tever 02:20, 8 May 2004 (UTC)

Plural?

Is there a generally accepted plural form for 'wiki'? 'Wikis' makes sense, but I like 'wikii' for purely aesthetic reasons. — This unsigned comment was added by Malgas (talk • contribs) at 09:28, 27 December 2004 (UTC).

dunno what the heading should be, but:

It really seems like this entry, of all entries on Wiktionary, should break with the normal rules of presenting definitions and be done up a bit to be a "Best foot forward" to the non-Wiki & non-Wiktionary.org world.

Somthing geared for the complete newbie, someone with absolutely no context.

Right now it just says something like 'any site based on wiki software.' And even that is amidst a wash of other information.

Seems like this entry should be the best place on the web to send someone to get a quick and easy idea/feel for what the hell a wiki is.

Something that covers the notion of wikis being created and kept up by visitors to them. — This unsigned comment was added by Ozzyslovechild~enwiktionary (talk • contribs) at 20:44, 30 January 2005 (UTC).

I'm guessing that the nature of definitions here prevent adding non-essential detail or something? — This unsigned comment was added by Ozzyslovechild~enwiktionary (talk • contribs) at 20:55, 30 January 2005 (UTC).

Agreed, yet currently the actual meaning isn't the first thing on the page - ridiculous! Jazzle 12:36, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Even if the accepted entry isn't to be changed, maybe a callout box on the side that gets the main point across somehow? Something.

— This unsigned comment was added by 204.213.55.209 (talk) at 17:11, 29 January 2005 (UTC).

Also, I'd suggest that there should be some synergy put in place to easy people on this page to segue the person to the wikipedia.org entry for 'wiki'.

I'm guessing that these would maybe break with the standards for definitions on Wiktionary, so I'm just floating it here instead of doing it, but maybe they wouldn't? I'm only a user on this wiki for the most part, so maybe a contributor could chime in?

— This unsigned comment was added by Ozzyslovechild~enwiktionary (talk • contribs) at 20:55, 30 January 2005 (UTC).

To my eyes, this is still a problem. In a normal electronic or paper dictionary, the definition jumps right out at you. Here, you have to search for it -- how ironic if not stupid. — This unsigned comment was added by 211.225.33.104 (talk) at 23:51, 21 May 2013 (UTC).

Verb? Other uses?

To wiki? Wikiing?

Also, should there be some example sentences using wiki? Don't think that's very common on this site, though I could be wrong, but since this word is a part of this site's identity, and will be a brand new word to many visitors of this page, it seems like stuff that should be done here.

Sort of surprising that the community hasn't sorted this out yet. Ozzyslovechild 15:54, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• I share your concern, I have seen this pop up, but a lot of unpopular slang crops up that doesn't necessarily merit inclusion into the Wiktionary. We should have sources on notable usage in the population before adopting this new verbalization of what was established prior as a noun. Dictabeard 21:55, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Where's the Fill 'er Up / Get 'er Done project on Wiktionary?

I know this isn't the place for this post, but this post isn't ready for posting. Why isn't at least the English version of Wikipedia pretty much complete? Seems like it wouldn't be that hard:

• Post a fundraiser(timeraiser) project/notice to Wikipedians that such and such week/month is hereby declared 'Go raise a barn over at Wiktionary.org' week.
• Facilitate their coming to know conventions.
• Facilitate the "Which words are left to be defined?" question, perhaps with a sub-project of "Which words need another pass?" or some such.

And let the heard turn Wiktionary.org into a second Flag Ship. Gotta be possible to do that, no? -Ozzyslovechild 03:28, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

On the front page is a subtle link to Wiktionary:Things to do. If that were to be featured on 'pedia...hmmm, I'm not sure we have enough admins to handle a healthy shashdotting...can't imagine what a healthy 'pediaing would do. Wiktionary is quite different from Wikipedia. We probably should have a decent "Wiktionary for Wikipedians" page in place before doing such a thing. On the other hand, it needs to be done at some point. --Connel MacKenzie 06:43, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the response, Connel:).

Indeed. Not sure we could. However, the great thing about calling for a willing-to-help onslaught(sp?) might be that we could simply direct them on how to figure out how to do what we want to do.

Could be quite simple. Call for a self-organizing week, weekend, day, side-project, whatever,, and then get some semi-prominent buy-in/exposure to the masses o'er @ 'pedia.

What, precisely, could the ability to (via MediaWiki) place a quick note on everyone's talk page the next time they see _any_ on-site page accomplish?

My guess would be a fair amount if they would just get fucking evangelical about it. Or systematical, or some such.

A call for True Believers, or those willing to use x/y/z as their learning project on the way to becoming true believers/grumbling followers, with some seriously efficient pass made at weeding in the right bunch, and then see what they grow, or some such claptrap.

-:)Ozzyslovechild 04:36, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

wiki/wikied as a verb

I often say "I wikied it" when I mean I looked it up on wikipedia. Kind of hard to prove if this is popular usage, however. Does anyone else say this? Citizen Premier 02:15, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

I haven't heard that before, no. Perhaps it belongs on our list of invented words? --Connel MacKenzie 02:25, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

I've heard to wiki used to describe the act of looking something up on Wikipedia (although I hate that definition as it supports the "wiki = Wikipedia" mindframe). However, at two different forums I go to, each with their own wikis, to wiki is used to describe the act of adding something to a wiki. I'm not sure how common this definition is, but it certainly makes more sense. --Bran 21:58, 24 May 2007

wiki = Wikipedia?

People use "wiki" to mean "Wikipedia". Even I do occasionally, because its shorter to say. I know Wikipedia is not the only wiki, and wiki != wikipedia, and yadayadayada... So shouldn't we add this as a slang usage? In terms of influence on culture/history, wikis are nowhere near as important as Wikipedia, so it isn't surprising that the term "wiki" gets co-opted for Wikipedia. --SJK 09:45, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I suspect that "wiki" gets used to mean any instance of a wiki that anyone uses regularly - though if we can cite "wiki" as a proper noun meaning wikipedia, then we should include it. (I had a quick scan through the first few pages [1] but nothing struck me as particularly convincing). Conrad.Irwin 09:59, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I hear it a lot from native speakers of German who are not aware that there are other wiki websites other than Wikipedia. They clearly use Wiki as an abbreviation for Wikipedia (wrongly assuming that it is perfectly fine and unambiguous to abbreviate Wikipedia so), not metonymically (more precisely speaking, as a synecdoche). Among English speakers, it seems much less common, but it does seem to occur sometimes; I seem to remember encountering instances of this usage on occasion. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 19:42, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

It's easy to find instances of this use in English using search terms such as "found it on wiki" or, in German, "Wiki gefunden", "auf/bei/in Wiki gefunden" (heh, I automatically continued to type "-pedia" in the instance just listed). --Florian Blaschke (talk) 10:13, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Page is oriented toward wikt/wp

this sense is wrong:

1. A collaborative website which can be directly edited by anyone with access to it.

I've seen wikis where one person manages it, and has those rights off limits to all other users (even MW allows global protection). -- 203.171.195.193 06:32, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Incorrect Volapük translation

The Volapük translation is wrong. it is not 'wiki,' it's *vük*. as in Vükiped. Chuffable 21:25, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Fixed. --Yair rand 21:31, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

RFV discussion

This entry has survived Wiktionary's verification process.

Please do not re-nominate for verification without comprehensive reasons for doing so.

---

Rfv-sense X 2: wiki#Verb

1. (transitive) To research a topic on Wikipedia or some similar wiki.

   To get an understanding of the topics, he quickly went online and wikied each one.

2. (intransitive) To contribute to a wiki.

A contributor had inserted {{fact}}s, for which I substituted {{rfv-sense}}s. My personal skepticism is much greater for sense 2. DCDuring TALK 22:36, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I think I have adequately cited the challenged senses. I have also found two other senses. DCDuring TALK 23:56, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Good research! (I assume you googlebooked these quotations?) We sometimes have reservations when words are used in quotation marks, as in the 2010 citation of the first sense, but that isn't the more doubtful sense, as you note. I would say this is RFV-passed. — Beobach 06:17, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

The more passive "research" senses, both transitive and intransitive could be cited many, many times over from Google Groups. "Contributing" rather than passively using is naturally much rarer. DCDuring TALK 07:37, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

All three are in the gerund form, which is treated as a noun. It would be nice to have some diversity there, to prove that it really is a verb. DAVilla 10:21, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

RFV passed.​—msh210℠ (talk) 17:24, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

IPA Dutch

Can someone have a look at the Dutch IPA transcription. I think it is /ˈʋiki/, it definitely isn't /ˈwiki/. Servien 20:55, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Additional use as noun to refer to a single page on a wiki

I quite frequently see and hear people refer to a single page in a wiki as a wiki, as in "see the wiki {url to a wiki page}". Does common/frequent use of a word merit a new definition? I don't know of specific durable citations; I usually see this in email. --DavidBiesack 19:05, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

We would accept three Usenet uses as attestation. Google groups can access these fairly conveniently. You can use {{quote-newsgroup}} to help in formatting. DCDuring TALK 22:01, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Are you sure they're not saying "see the wiki" (meaning the entire site) and then linking to one specific page on it? Equinox ◑ 22:10, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

I am fairly sure of having encountered this usage several times in English, too, and no, it was really only one specific page that was meant. Uninformed people sometimes misinterpret technical terms – that's a truism. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 20:03, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

RFD discussion: June–August 2017

The following information passed a request for deletion (permalink).

This discussion is no longer live and is left here as an archive. Please do not modify this conversation, but feel free to discuss its conclusions.

---

wiki

Chinese: This is not Chinese. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 04:48, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

This is related to "#Flash" above. Would you like to start a full discussion on the issue at the Beer Parlour? — SMUconlaw (talk) 13:50, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Personally I'd like to put this one in RFV. —suzukaze (t・c) 00:52, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

• Keep, move to RFV if there is doubt that the word is used in Chinese. —Granger (talk · contribs) 20:26, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
• RFD kept. Feel free to RFV it, though. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 07:47, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

RFV discussion: May 2019–February 2021

The following information has failed Wiktionary's verification process (permalink).

Failure to be verified means that insufficient eligible citations of this usage have been found, and the entry therefore does not meet Wiktionary inclusion criteria at the present time. We have archived here the disputed information, the verification discussion, and any documentation gathered so far, pending further evidence.
Do not re-add this information to the article without also submitting proof that it meets Wiktionary's criteria for inclusion.

---

wiki

@Justinrleung sent this to RFD, where multiple editors encouraged putting it in RFV instead. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 04:14, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

RFV-deleted — surjection ⟨??⟩ 20:38, 11 February 2021 (UTC)