2006/5/29, Traroth traroth@yahoo.fr:
Michael Snow a écrit :
And for the other projects, a wiki is sometimes far from ideal, true enough. That's been recognized for some time, which is why there are ongoing efforts to adapt or extend the software to better serve those objectives. In the meantime, the wiki is the tool we've got. Tired cliches aside, I'm sure better ones would be welcomed if somebody cares to offer us more tools.
That's not false. But a question remains : why did Wikipedia become a hit, with millions of articles in hundred of languages, while Nupedia, which actually followed the same principles as Wikipedia, except it was not a wiki, never reached 100 articles ?
Well, as said, for Wikipedia wiki worked very well. That doesn't mean it works as well for other projects. A wiki means several things at once, and it is one of them (the wiki philosophy of free editing and control afterward instead of in advance) that made Wikipedia work where Nupedia did not. Wiktionary would I think work better in an environment with the same philosophy but a different technology (more database-like rather than marked up text). Wikiquote and Commons might well profit from a similar switch. For Wikisource the whole 'free editing' concept itself does not seem as suitable, or at least, not as necessary.