Talk:Personal wiki

EverNote

Does Evernote (http://www.evernote.com) qualify as a wiki? It's mainly a note taking application... (unsigned comment 03:08, 7 December 2006 Asharism)

EverNote has an article, which does not classify it as a wiki. The article description does not make it sound like a wiki. However, if someone feels motivated, they might write a section: Personal wiki#Comparison to note-taking software, and compare personal wikis to note-taking applications. PS, please sign your comments, and if you type full URLs, they turn into hyperlinks (see: Help:Link#External links). --Teratornis 18:54, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Merging with Desktop Wiki

I'm not sure which page should remain: Desktop Wiki or Personal wiki? Any ideas? --The NeveR SLeePiNG 21:57, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

See: WP:MERGE and WP:REDIRECT. It looks like the customary solution is to merge the two articles into one, keeping both article names, and leaving one as a redirect to the other, to avoid breaking any existing links. The choice of which page to keep as the content page seems arbitrary; I favor keeping Personal wiki as the canonical article, and making Desktop Wiki a redirect to Personal wiki, because:

• Desktop Wiki is less general, implying a limitation to desktop computers. However, personal wikis can also run on mobile computing devices such as PDAs and laptops (e.g., the "wiki on a stick"). There may not be any such thing as a wiki that is truly limited to the desktop, making the name something of a misnomer.
• Desktop Wiki's title violates WP:TITLE#Lowercase second and subsequent words in titles.

I suggest also making a Desktop wiki as a redirect to Personal wiki, so at least the WP:TITLE-compliant name exists as a search target. Comments? --Teratornis 18:44, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I felt bold so I went ahead and copied the content from Desktop Wiki into Personal wiki, and made Desktop Wiki and Desktop wiki redirects to it. --Teratornis 21:01, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Flying Meat / VoodooPad corrections.

So I propose a change to the VoodooPad information-

The company's name is "Flying Meat", not "flyingmeat", so it would be good to fix that. And the line "flyingmeat also make a lightweight wiki server available for use with VoodooPad." is no longer true, so I think it should be deleted. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.17.92.4 (talk) 20:01, 4 May 2007 (UTC).

change in focus

Originally this article was focused on the additional features that personal wikis offered as sort of a roadmap for where server wikis might head in upcoming years. The focus has shifted to an emphasis on an inventory of products. While I don't mind mentioning wikipad it doesn't provide the same focus. The core idea is drag and drop, support for multimedia directly, it has an intuitive interface however. I wanted to give a little time to discuss but I'm rejecting the change in focus. jbolden1517^Talk 11:05, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not going to take sides, but will note that Wikidpad does in fact support drag and drop of files (and will display them if possible, e.g. images) Dnowacki 19:31, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Discussion of order of listed personal Wikis

Originally this article was focused on the additional features that personal wikis offered as sort of a roadmap for where server wikis might head in upcoming years. The focus has shifted to an emphasis on an inventory of products. While I don't mind mentioning wikipad it doesn't provide the same focus. The core idea is drag and drop, support for multimedia directly, it has an intuitive interface however. I wanted to give a little time to discuss but I'm rejecting the change in focus. jbolden1517^Talk 11:05, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I changed the definiton of completely because it was much to special. I someone wants the former definition, please find a less general term for it than "Personal Wiki" and put it on a special page. Please explain further why WikidPad shouldn't lead. How would you categorize WikidPad if not as a Personal Wiki? it should go on top, because it is free open-source like Wikipedia and covers the most platforms. And why a special section for VoodooPad and ConnectedText? Instead I put in sections for free and non-free software. I removed all screenshots because they hardly offer any information because they are so tiny. Who is interested in a wiki should visit that Wikis page. HelgeHan 09:00, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

There is a great deal of interest in wikis. What's important about personal wikis was what was different about them from the server based ones. Now as for why wikipad shouldn't lead:

1. It currently is not very good compared to the others. There is nothing unique about it. What's different about it then Notebook wiki.
2. It has not advanced wiki technology. It seems to be behind not ahead of server based wikis.
3. It doesn't offer features not available on server based wikis
4. It doesn't classify itself completely as a wiki (it classifies itself as a notetaker / organizer) -- in particular it doesn't have collaborative features.
5. VoodooPad essentially invented the personal wiki in a mainstream way
6. Connectedtext seems currently to be the most advanced personal wiki
7. In terms of usage VoodooPad is far and away the non windows leader beating everyone else combined.

I suggest you consider WP:SOAP regarding using wikipedia to advance political positions (like open source is good or bad). In theory Wikipedia should report licensing but be indifferent to it. I'm OK with slightly favoring opensource since after all opensource is a good thing. I'm not OK with defacing an article on personal wikis so that some open source package doesn't look comparatively like junk. jbolden1517^Talk 09:40, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, right now the article looks like advertisement for Flying Meat or ConnectedText. Is it important information that VoodooPad was made by Flying Meat? I don't quite think so. I don't see at all why you want to devide the world of personal wikis into the categories "VoodooPad", "ConnectedText" and "Others". That looks quite biased. At least 90% of the people coming to this page cannot even use VoodooPad at all because they don't own Max OS X. The information most interesting to the average reader should go on top, shouldn't it? What's your answer to this? Consider WP:SOAP for promoting your Mac. - But well... I am tired of this and because you probably get your money from VoodooPad, you will prevail, because I need my time to earn some money. HelgeHan 18:27, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

VoodooPad essentially invented the personal wiki. I can live with ConnectedText at the top. You still haven't addressed the objections to Wikipad. jbolden1517^Talk 18:57, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

If VoodooPad has that honor then it should be noted in the article. Also this list of software should be on a separate page and perhaps a table view like Comparison_of_wiki_software. If you also want a page with a short description of each item, then they should be grouped by OS and listed alphabetically. I also think most screenshots should be kept to the pages about the specific software product, and perhaps have one or two screenshots on this page that might give a general sense of the genre. PurpleFlux 19:49, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Funny how PurpleFlux (talk · contribs) has never edited before starting on this talk page, but comes on to agree with Helgehan. jbolden1517^Talk 22:32, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

What are you implying? My choice of when to finally create an account should have no bearing on the argument I make. Furthermore I do not believe I am agreeing with HelgeHan as they wanted Wikipad to be on the top but I want a neutral table or list of the software arranged by OS. Perhaps you mistook my comment about noting VoodooPad's importance to the personal wiki history as an attack, but it was meant squarely at adding such a note to the article because it would be a good contribution of historical information. PurpleFlux 04:30, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

jbolden I see you added the references about VoodooPad - I think that is an excellent addition, I enjoyed the read. Do you think a heading above the VoodooPad and ConnectedText might be good, maybe Notable Personal Wikis? Just seems abrupt how it jumps from a list of differentiating features to a short list of notable personal wikis. I still think that below the (proposed) Notable wikis section should be a proper list of the wikis including the afore-noted ones, listed by OS hopefully. I do not think cross platform should go first, in fact it might make sense to just list the cross platform ones on each of their platforms because not every cross platform one will encompass the same platforms. I also wouldn't mind a crack at making the comparison page, but I've never created a page before - anything I should know in advance? I was also thinking of making a page for ScrewTurn Wiki. PurpleFlux 03:06, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Main thing people forget when they make a page is to add categories and since its most likely a stub to add the correct stub footer. You seem to know how to edit so that's it. New pages from new users attract attention so any mistake will get fixed fairly quickly :-).

Adding an entry

I used Wikidpad and ConnectedText both but currently using TotalText Container. Not truly a wiki as it is edited in a WYSIWYG mode for rich-text documents but can also contain archives (for files), calendar, spreadsheet, bookmarks, folders, ect. Can I just add it on the mainpage or what? -- Jar 84.80.243.35 19:52, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

You said yourself it isn't a wiki so I think it might be better off in Outliner or Personal_information_manager PurpleFlux 20:16, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Proposal to group the software list by OS

I (HelgeHan) propose to reorder the list of Wikis by operating system because 99% of people are mainly interested only in software for their own OS.

Here you find my proposed version of the page in the history: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Personal_wiki&oldid=131363765

jbolden1517 claims that I have no consensus for this. My question to jbolden1517: What conditions do I have to meet in order to "have consensus"?

You actually need to describe it accurately. jbolden1517^Talk 09:32, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

What else than my version of the page is needed to meet that? HelgeHan 10:17, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

The two points I mentioned under it. See this version [1] of the talk page jbolden1517^Talk 11:06, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

You are actually proposing that OS independent rather than windows specific go first. In general windows users don't care about cross platform and prefer systems that use their technology. Since that's far and away the most common desktop.... jbolden1517^Talk 09:32, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

The OS independent software is interesting for anyone, including Windows users. If it is below, people will just read the section about their own OS and forget about the platform independent ones. HelgeHan 10:17, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

That's a marketing choice. We aren't in the business of marketing. jbolden1517^Talk 11:06, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with marketing. It is just about helping people find the information they are mainly looking for in such a list: A complete list of wikis they can easily use on their OS. If you know about a typical mistake people make, why not help them?HelgeHan 11:13, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok I've done some research on similar lists on Wikipedia and out of the first five results pages I only found two examples that sort by OS for their basic list. They are List of optical disc authoring software and List of PDF software. These two examples do put multi-platform as the first entry, but the majority of lists don't even sort by OS - that sort of thing is usually left to a comparison page. Perhaps we should keep this page simple but have all the details on a comparison page? PurpleFlux 21:32, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Very good idea, your research! IMHO a comparison table would be great. I think we should have it on this page, because if we take out the list of wikis, there will be hardly any content left. IMHO having another page would be unnecessary fragmentation. I don't think anyone will get lost on this small page. HelgeHan 08:52, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

You are also proposing a shift in the entire focus of this article. This has never been an article about which personal wiki should I use. So that needs to be part of the description. jbolden1517^Talk 09:32, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Okay, then how about PurpleFlux's idea "Also this list of software should be on a separate page and perhaps a table view like Comparison_of_wiki_software."? HelgeHan 10:17, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

If you want to start a page "Comparison of Desktop Wikis" and do whatever with it, I think that would be great. Depending on the table I'd likely even be OK with a table being included in this article (providing the focus is on the technology with a column dedicated to licensing). jbolden1517^Talk 11:06, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

To achieve a consensus you would need a couple of editors with a history of posts, agreeing with you. Particularly helpful would be Teratornis (talk · contribs), Blueapples (talk · contribs), {{User|AlistairMcMillan}| etc... who were part of the editing history of this article and agreed with the focus.

jbolden1517^Talk 09:32, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

If they are interested they should write down their opinion right here. HelgeHan 10:17, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

You are asking what's required for consensus, and the answer is other people agreeing with you. jbolden1517^Talk 11:06, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Proposal to Personal wiki

As used by by Dnowacki -- what is "the wiki philosophy of organizing information"? Paul G. Kostro 21:07, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Notable Personal Wikis

HelgeHan I see you removed the Notable Personal Wikis heading. That was discussed here before adding but you did not discuss it before removing it. Please discuss it first. I think the two personal wiki software entries need some sort of delineation from the text above them, if you don't like the heading Notable Personal Wikis then please let us discuss an alternate name rather than just remove the heading. One option would be to incorporate VoodooPad's notability into the article text and move it's list entry into the rest of the list. As for as ConnectedText I don't see a notable reason to keep it out of the normal list with the rest of them. And yes I do think that being the first implementation of essentially a new software genre does in fact constitute having more notability than the rest. PurpleFlux 22:07, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I missed that. Well, the comparasion table is the solution I think. HelgeHan 10:03, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

The notable designation is horribly arbitrary. Each wiki here is notable for some reason. And there's no good reason this list should be anything but alphabetical. --67.184.243.29 02:29, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

MediaWiki?

Is there a personal wiki similar to MediaWiki? I'm looking for a personal wiki, but I don't like the anything I've seen and would prefer one similar to Wikipedia. --Needscurry 20:21, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

What features of Wikipedia do you want? If you want the MediaWiki's wiki markup syntax, you can probably customize the syntax of some personal wikis. For example WikidPad allows you to change the Wiki syntax. HelgeHan 20:20, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I am not the original poster, or anything. I am actually looking to start a small personal wiki online because I like that it's easier to organize than blogs, websites, not to mention much easier to interface with, while remaining clean. I am a writer and a role player and I want to organize all the different things in my character's worlds. Characters, places... everything. I'd need the text, in linking, out linking, images. Not so much quotes or coding, but all the things a typical wiki uses regularly. Just Another Face 14:40, 9th of July, 2007

If it's going to be online, maybe you want a bliki? (Disclaimers: I haven't read that article, and I hate the word.) --68.44.13.236 03:33, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Compatibility/interoperability

Are there any programs to convert databases between any of the formats, or are you pretty much stuck copying and pasting stuff by hand if you decide to switch? --68.44.13.236 16:45, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Connectedtext-tree.jpg

Image:Connectedtext-tree.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 07:34, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Definition of personal wiki

I wonder what a personal notebook has to do to qualify as a personal wiki. From what I understand, the major features of wikis are:

• Keeping history of page versions
• Plain text mark-up for formatting and linking of entries

Some of the software listed has neither of these two features; most of them have no article versioning. I wonder whether they should better be removed. I am removing MemPad, as it has neither of the two features. --Dan Polansky (talk) 13:20, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

I feel that "linking of entries" (with plain text mark-up) is nescessary to qualify as a personal wiki. I work with WikidPad and it feels absolutely like working with a wiki. Before that I was using MediaWiki as a personal wiki, but as a personal wiki WikidPad is way faster. I don't think that keeping a history of page versions should be considered a major feature of a personal wiki, because that is only essential in a multi-user environment in order to protect the content without access restrictions.HelgeHan (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 15:58, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

A comment more than half a year later: I am not a user of a personal wiki (and I still don't know the definition of personal wiki), so I can just speculate. What I find attractive about the idea of personal wiki is the page history, with the page differences easy to read and old versions easy to recover. So I don't see the value of having history restricted to multi-user environment. If Mediawiki were easy to install on a personal computer, I would give it a try for personal use. I would reuse the markup skills that I have gained at Wikipedia and its sibling projects. --Dan Polansky (talk) 13:13, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I actually have external version control for my personal wiki, but I cannot remember the last time I used it.

I think Mediawiki is quite easy to install, if you use xampp.

At least in WikidPad (and probably others) the markup syntax is configureable. You can mock Wikipedia's markup, but I don't see the need, because I use very little markup in my personal wiki, just links, headings, bold und pre, because I am the only person I am writing for in my personal wiki. 89.182.1.130 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 13:14, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

ZuluPad

I make the argument here that ZuluPad is at least notable as any of the other Personal Wiki applications listed at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_wiki , and as such deserves to be listed on that page. I also make the case that since the original ZuluPad page was deleted on February 27, 2006, it has come to be a popular and noteworthy program, deserving of its own Wikipedia page. I have asked for a deletion review because "new information has come to light since a deletion", and while a new page could be created, user User:VanTucky will not allow the page to be recreated, ostensibly because of the original deletion decision of 2/27/06.

I will establish ZuluPad's notability in a bit, but first, some history: I added ZuluPad to the Personal Wiki (originally "Desktop Wiki", but the two pages were merged, and hereafter I will refer to both as "Personal Wiki") page in early 2006, and I created a ZuluPad page at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ZuluPad . The initial ZuluPad page was deleted because the application was deemed to be non-notable. Granted, it had been released just weeks before, so it was probably non-notable at the time. I exercised my right to challenge the deletion on Wikipedia here, but lost. I respected the community decision at that time to delete the ZuluPad page, and leave it listed on the Personal Wiki page. I did not try to recreate the page.

However, ZuluPad has been listed continuously on the Personal Wiki page since February 2006 until being deleted--along with a number of other Personal Wiki applications--by User:Thumperward on May 17, 2008 with this note: "(rm inappropriate external links; please add back examples when they are notable enough for their own articles. move all screenies to the top for now)". By this point, ZuluPad did have its own page, created by a ZuluPad user (with whom I have no association) around September 2006. This ZuluPad user mentioned his desire to have a Wikipedia page on the ZuluPad forum here.

Anyway, since ZuluPad did have its own page at this point, I followed Thumperward's suggestion to "add back examples when they are notable enough for their own articles". ZuluPad had its own article at this point, so I added it back. It seems worthwhile to note that this direction to only list applications with their own Wikipedia pages comes solely from Thumperward, and is not the result of any community consensus or existing Wikipedia policy. It also conflicts with the community decision to delete the ZuluPad page and "Merge into Desktop Wiki (which could have some external links) until it gains some notability of its own." -rodii. Somewhat interestingly, this decision to remove Personal Wiki applications en masse also removed VoodooPad, which according to the Personal Wiki Discussion page, is the inventor of the genre. It should also most certainly be listed here.

I attempted to re-add ZuluPad to the Personal Wiki page, but another user, VanTucky decided to delete the existing ZuluPad page, and remove references to ZuluPad from the Personal Wiki page each time I added them, claiming it shouldn't be listed because it didn't have its own Wikipedia page. I find the circular logic used here astounding. The person who deleted the page shouldn't be able to make the argument that Wikipedia should be purged of references to ZuluPad solely because it doesn't have its own page, and a decision to delete a page shouldn't preclude that page from being recreated at a later date, which is what VanTucky is arguing. I ask here for a reversal of the original deletion decision, so VanTucky will stop deleting all references to ZuluPad from Wikipedia.

Why is ZuluPad at least as notable as any of the other Personal Wiki applications listed on the "Personal Wiki" page? A Google search for "ZuluPad" will net you 23,400 results, some of which are the following:

<snip> (removing list of external promotion; no longer pertinent to current discussion) Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:23, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Anyway, I hope I've made my case. At the very least, I strongly believe that ZuluPad should appear on the Personal Wiki page, even if User:VanTucky disagrees, and I feel it should also have its own page here on Wikipedia. Omeomi (talk) 04:46, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

><((((º>`·.¸¸.·´¯`·.¸.·´¯`·...¸><((((º>¸.·´¯`·...¸.·´¯`·><((((º>><((((º>`·.¸¸.·´¯`·.¸.·´¯`·...¸><((((º>

• bernard from RunningWithBulls.com

Hi there. I am a telecoms engineer working for a well known telecoms vendor. I am inundated with information, tips, tricks, little bits of information that I have to remember to a) make my life easier, b) keep people happy, c) do my job effectively.

Since 99% of this information is proprietary, and therefore cannot be shared online, or posted to the Internet public (it says so in my contract), I had to look for somewhere to store these sources of information.

I spent 3 weeks looking for:

• an application, an installable, easily movable wiki application for my computer.

• an application that allowed me to link to other pieces of information, in the public Internet.

• an application that would allow me to share the information via a web browser with my collegues, inside our company firewall.

Since I found ZuluPad I have used it probably 3-4 hours of my working day, and another 1-2 hours at home every day.

Every time I need to remember how to do a certain task, I look at the ZuluPad wiki index page and navigate to the link I want.

I have used it for taking notes, in the middle of a training course, while every one else write on a sheet of paper.

I get notes created in seconds, instead of minutes.

And since it is an easy markup language, I can export it out to HTML, and put the files in my webserver folder on my laptop for other collegues to use.

The definition of a wiki, from this very site states:

"A wiki is a collection of web pages designed to enable anyone who accesses it to contribute or modify content, using a simplified markup language."

This is exactly what ZuluPad is.

Stop the nonsense and put the ZuluPad page back.

If you think this is some sockpuppet speaking, please e-mail me: bATrunningwithbullsDOTcom and I will happily telephone you and explain the other ways I use ZuluPad Wiki at home.

Its a pity more software isn't as easy and as cheap.

• Koonaone

I found it disturbing to send the longstanding ZuluPad page link to an associate and have her report back to me that it's defunct. On investigating the matter I find myself here on this page and beyond being disturbed, I'm now perturbed, and confused as well. I'm not about to spend much of my valuable time learning the semiotics of wikipedias word usage but it appears that notability is a salient and recurring focus. Something that's notable is worthy of notice. something that's worthy of notice is ipso facto notable. I assure you all that zuluPad is worthy of notice.

In my work I am faced with the daunting job of describing prognosticatively a system that is several orders of magnitude more complex than all of the works of mankind combined, that is intellectualy incomprehensible without a set of strong hierarchical classification tools, and that works in such a totaly successfully integrated fashion that it is clearly Required that we understand it ASAP. In contrast is my clear conviction that all things in ecosystems actually are interconnected to one extent or another, and that the very tools of analysis we use to view the systemic scale of nature, work against a true human apprehension of the nature of Nature. ZuluPad has proven to be a trusted tool in this never ending chore.

ZuluPad is one of the only true Brains in my data stream that works in this regard in that ALL inputs to the project wherever they are from, and whatever scale of significance they may have, are easily and creatively entered, and just as creatively assembled again in new ways. My own brain is allowed to do its processing work in its moment without the constraints of hierarchy and with full confidence that the data is not being lost in obscurity. Exploring the true complexity of the linkages between objects isn't marred by any necessity to maintain fiats of order external to my own vision of the day, yet the program faithfully returns my input and allows the vision of a future day to add, ammend, or even delete yesterdays vision. Just like a brain. I consider that to be worthy of notice in the modern arena of pondorous, constrained and generally business oriented applications.

It is true that the perceptual slant of a programmer, shows through in their software creations sometimes I believe, and there is an accent or dialectic in ZuluPad that is subtle and perhaps could be missed in a cursory examination, perhaps this is what's happening in this unfortunate case.

I have spent more effort here than intended, all I can hope is that the ZuluPad page be put back where it belongs. Thanks kindly Koonaone (talk) 09:22, 23 May 2008 (UTC) ><((((º>`·.¸¸.·´¯`·.¸.·´¯`·...¸><((((º>¸.·´¯`·...¸.·´¯`·><((((º>><((((º>`·.¸¸.·´¯`·.¸.·´¯`·...¸><((((º>

Here on Wikipedia, the sole barometer of fitness for inclusion is notability as verified through significant coverage in reliable sources. A reliable source is one that has an editorial structure and strong fact checking, and not just any source will do. In other words, Digg hits and review sites do not qualify; a news print feature, a mention in a book, these would be acceptable. But unless there are sources that meet our policy, ZuluPad does not meet our standards for inclusion. That's the end of the story. ZuluPad might be a really great wiki application, I don't know. But unless there are reliable sources we can use to verify an article with, Wikipedia cannot have an article on it. VanTucky 18:45, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I think we should seperate off the issue of whether Zulupad deserves an entire article or a 2 line mention in this article. There are enough 3rd party sources to justify a link WP:EL in particular what should be linked criteria #1. There are also some 3rd party articles. So is there an actual question whether ZuluPad exists or is a wiki? Because for inclusion in this article that's all that's needed to be verified. jbolden1517^Talk 20:24, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree that this discussion should be focused on whether ZuluPad should be listed on the Personal Wiki page. I have only combined the two arguments because VanTucky has made the argument that only programs with their own pages should be mentioned here, despite a lack of any Wikipedia policy that says that. --Omeomi (talk) 20:42, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

In response to VanTucky, The Record--listed as a source above under Northjersey.com--is a print newspaper serving the New Jersey area. The editor of The Record (Frank Scandale) is shown on this page: The Record (Bergen County). As a professional publication, one could assume that The Record has at least as good an editorial structure as any other print newspaper. Here is what Wikipedia has to say about print publications: "It is not necessary that the source be findable instantly by any reader, merely that it be demonstrably findable (for instance, by library or archive request)." Additionally, the very popular Lifehacker has an editorial staff, listed on the Lifehacker Wikipedia page. What's more, the reliability page mentions nothing about a requirement for a source to have an editorial staff, so the online sources should be considered just as much as any other source. --Omeomi (talk) 20:42, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

If it's not notable enough for its own article, it's not notable enough for a list article. This isn't download.com, and our criteria for inclusion are exactly the same for such lists as they are for articles.

The current article is an advertising board. People should concentrate on backing up those apps which have some degree of notability with secondary sources which provide notability. WP:EL is a perfectly valid reason to nuke all the external links which go to mere product home pages, and that's what I'll be doing again the next time I look at this article. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 15:26, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

• Right now, ZuluPad and VoodooPad are the only applications here that have shown any sources establishing any notability whatsoever. Whether or not an application has its own page is not a good way to judge an application's notability, which is probably why Wikipedia has no such policy.--Omeomi (talk) 04:40, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

• D J Ingham (email: DJIngham@gmail.com)

I have been using Zulupad for some years now - not in any heavyweight way - but for all the random scratchings that help me not only at work but personally.

The main advantage to Zulupad is the ease of use. I was most impressed that I could get going so quickly and now I rely on this software as a repository for items that do not fit easily into a formal filing system.

I am therefore surprised to see that Zulupad has disappeared from Wikipedia. I would welcome its return. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.127.166 (talk) 13:24, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Secondary sources

As the section above is unreadable, just to reiterate: Any entry on this page which cannot establish notability either through (a) its own article or (b) through appropriate secondary sources in reference tags is no better than a spam link, and should be removed. I'll continue to watch the page for improvements to that effect (as several for ZuluPad have been given above) for the time being, but still plan to jump back to the de-spammed version in the near future. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 15:30, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Why in the world would you unilaterally jump back to the "de-spammed" version rather than relying on community consensus? It's already been demonstrated that there is not a consensus to just blowing away nearly all of the programs listed here, and some of the programs removed are more notable than the programs that were arbitrarily left here. If anything, there should be a discussion here about which programs should stay and which programs should be removed. I'm not saying this page should be a clearing house of anything that anybody posts, but whether or not an application has it's own page isn't a good barometer for notability. Maybe nobody's gotten around to making a page. Doesn't mean it isn't notable. And there are many non-notable applications that have pages that nobody's gotten around to deleting. Why did VoodooPad get removed? The note--with a source cited--claims that VoodooPad invented the personal wiki. If that's true, it seems to be an especially good reason to list it here. And why did DidiWiki stay? There's a note on the page saying that it isn't even available anymore, and the DidiWiki page has a note saying that the article is written as an advertisement. And you've said yourself that several sources for ZuluPad have been given above. I haven't seen that many sources given for any other application listed here, so why would any of them be considered more notable that ZuluPad?. Why not delete every application on here, and nuke their pages as well? You might be interested in viewing my draft ZuluPad page with sources cited: User:Omeomi/ZuluPad. It's possible that many of the applications listed here are non-notable, but having one person decide what is and what is not notable is not a good way to go about it. If you ask me, the most notable personal wikis here are TiddlyWiki, VoodooPad, WikidPad, and ZuluPad (in alphabetical order), but you don't see me just deleting the rest without consulting anybody else. --Omeomi (talk) 04:12, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia has a serious problem with software articles becoming repositories of external links to products. Policy and consensus are equally important. If the apps in question are notable, then they'll get articles, and those articles will have good secondary sources, and there's no problem. But if not, there's no reasonable way to tell the difference between one external link to a product and another. I'd rather have short, well-referenced articles than long lists of questionable resources which have the odd bit of worth. Thanks for your work on adding ZuluPad in any case. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:42, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

• Okay, then lets get a dialog going. Your note that "notable apps will get articles, and those articles will have good secondary sources" might generally be true, but in this case, most of these applications don't have good secondary sources listed on their own pages, so there's no reason to believe that their articles establish any notability whatsoever. I think, rather than deleting anything at this point, we should put some time into finding secondary sources for all of the applications listed here. At the end of this search process, we can trim the rest. That way, we can make sure that we actually are listing the most notable personal wikis. As I mentioned before, the personal wikis that I see mentioned most often online are TiddlyWiki, VoodooPad, WikidPad, and ZuluPad. I think i have seen the occasional mention of ConnectedText as well. I will see what sorts of sources I can find on these applications. Are there any popular personal wikis that I'm missing here? --Omeomi (talk) 15:56, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:StoneNotes 1 2.png

The image Image:StoneNotes 1 2.png is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

The following images also have this problem:

• Image:WikidPad Screenshot.gif

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --23:44, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Comparison table

I think we should create a comparison table similar to comparison of wiki software for personal wiki software. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 04:34, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Totally agree (kersti) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kersti (talk • contribs) 10:30, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

1/14/2009 Entry re-added

I've re-added my entry (Gazette), I feel it very much qualifies as a personal wiki. Thanks for reading.Zenosys (talk) 07:53, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

The entry doesn't link correctly inside Wikipedia, it links to Gazette (newspape). I would recommend replacing that link with a link to the home site of the Gazette (wiki). Since the list currently contains essentially dead personal wiki systems, I cannot see why your entry shouldn't be there too, but all those not-very-notable wikis might not survive an article rehaul, so hurry up — make them notable (!!), but be careful not to use Wikipedia as an advertizing board, since that might make some scrutinizing editor perform a deletion crusade. ... said: Rursus (^mbork³) 07:52, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

DidiWiki link lost

DidiWiki, the very nifty little C wiki based on files, not on any heavy SQL cannon, has lost its home page somehow. AFAIK the wiki uses some bad C code, relying on a nonportable stack allocation for certain purposes, making my tries to port it from ISO-8859-1 to Unicode hard. However: the code can be pealed so that the HTTP code skeleton can be used for another code base. ... said: Rursus (^mbork³) 07:28, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Found another site where the code can still be retrieved. (FYI: I erased my Unicode port for code stinkiness). ... said: Rursus (^mbork³) 08:45, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

General advice to all hackers full of expectations

Rename your wiki software to something that don't make too many false hits on google. Names such as "Personal PPC Wiki", "Wiki in a jar", "Wiki on a Stick", "WikiNotes" aren't very good. Then I wish everybody happy hacking. ... said: Rursus (^mbork³) 10:56, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Linkfarm

I've added a linkfarm tag to the article, with the date that this problem was first identified [2]. Cleanup was done over two years later [3]. The only relevant discussions I can find is in Talk:Personal_wiki#ZuluPad and Talk:Personal_wiki#Secondary_sources, where the consensus appears to be to follow WP:EL and WP:NOTLINK. The external links were restored a few months later, with claims of consensus to the opposite [4]. --Ronz (talk) 17:57, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

There wasn't a consensus in 2007. Zulupad is a pretty good test case. There hasn't been much content added to this article over the years though. My opinion has been the article should have redlinks like we used to do around 2005-6 for this sort of article. But redlinks are rarely used anymore. Rather than delete what little useful information wikipedia has on this topic why not first expand the text? jbolden1517^Talk 20:42, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm here to try to make some progress on a three-year-old dispute. I hope you'll respect that. Thanks! --Ronz (talk) 21:01, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with trying to make progress, we'll see what others have to say. My objection to the tag is that it instructs people to take action, action that when last discussed was not supported. We'll see what others have to say. If it is just the two of us, then we need to discuss the issue here till you and I come to some agreement, before we instruct 3rd parties to take action. In general I support expanding wikipedia not reducing it. I'd love to replace those ELs with wikilinks and am all in favor of that. jbolden1517^Talk 11:56, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

My next step was to remove all external links but the specific ones you restored. I'll wait, because I'm still looking for an explanation of why you restored any at all. Simply because you didn't think there was consensus? --Ronz (talk) 17:42, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Luminotes

The site luminotes.com says that the service is shut down. The Source Code is still availible. I don't know if the entry about it should be changed. I just wanted to drop a hint. --213.139.132.253 (talk) 11:21, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Types of Wiki

A more apropos title for the article is "Wiki Types" Kernel.package (talk) 05:20, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Semantic Personal Wiki?

Is there such a thing? --Ayacop (talk) 14:22, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Unreferenced content

This article lacks any citations. It was replaced with a redirect to List of wiki software a few weeks ago, but as that doesn't address the problem, I have restored the article and added the Unreferenced template. I will also nominate it for deletion, which is the better course of action rather than spontaneously making it a redirect. (Personally, I don't think it should be deleted, but if it can't gather some citations, that's the policy.) -- Perey (talk) 06:29, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Wicked

The Horde project, a php-based groupware suite, includes a Wiki. http://www.horde.org/apps/wicked You might consider including Wicked.Williamsonday (talk) 23:27, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Propose merge with Wiki

I don't see any fine line which distinguishes personal wikis from private/organization wikis from public/must-register wikis from public/no-registration-required wikis. It's just a difference of how people use them. The wiki is not changed, only the way that people use it.

Indeed, this page tries to list 'personal wiki' software. I use MediaWiki for my 'personal wiki', though it is not in the list... Who is wrong: me or the article?

Having separate articles for Wiki and Personal Wiki is like having two separate articles for Car, depending on where you drive it. I propose merging this article into Wiki. 140.180.189.27 (talk) 05:37, 4 February 2013 (UTC)