Yesterday, the O'Reilly Network's Scott Hacker addressed the end-user experience of setting up and customizing a wiki (with some eloquent commentary by visitors at the end) : _Where's the Movable Type of the Wiki World?_ ( http://www.onlamp.com/pub/wlg/5794 ) Hacker suggests the Wiki world needs its own elegant, soup-to-nuts wikiproject, comparing the chaos of wiki communities and documentation to that of the blogging world pre-Movable Type. He shopped around for a wiki to use for an educational project (which was inspired by WikiPedia, retro camel caps and all), and finally settled on MediaWiki as the best choice. Unfortunately, its "scattered and obtuse" documentation, "stupidly difficult" customizations, and lack of an off-wiki user manual, left him cold. He notes he'd be willing to pay on the order of $100 for an actively developed, well-supported solution. --- U.Penn student Swarat Chaudhury, writing for India's venerable paper / The Statesman / , was more openly optimistic: http://www.thestatesman.net/page.news.php?clid=24&theme=&usrsess=1&… "Wikipedia has spawned a sister project called Wiktionary (http://www.wiktionary. org), a collaborative multilingual dictionary with pronunciations, etymology and quotations. The grand ambition of these projects is nothing short of letting the demos beat the experts at their own game... Personally, I still rely on the OED most of the time, but I also look forward to a day when Wiktionary beats it hands down." +sj+