A Wiki Gnome works behind the scenes to tie up loose ends, correct misspellings, add categories, fix broken formatting and links, and turn ordinary words into Wiki references. The word originated at Ward's Wiki [L1 ]. On some wikis, Wiki Gnomes also replace long threads of a dialog with a summary of the conclusions; here at the Tcler's Wiki, such changes can be controversial as some users object to having their words edited. Others are generally in favor of the practice, but do not have time or energy to do so. See also Cleaning up pages on this wiki.
Discussion
how to clean?
LV How to clean what? Be more specific, and perhaps we can help you.
Someone want to write more about the meaning of this term?
escargo 1 Feb 2006 - I think the page creator was thinking that the cleaning up of wiki pages would be done by some gnomes who took it upon themselves to keep things tidy (behind the scenes). Conflating the terms "wiki" and "gnomes" creates the new term "wikignomes."
AK: See also Cleaning up pages on this wiki.
KBK I used the term on the chat, together with a reference to Ward's Wiki [L2 ] where I first saw the term. From that site:
A Wiki Gnome works behind the scenes to tie up little loose ends, adding ISBNs of books that people mention, tracking down the authorship of "someone once said" quotes, correcting broken links, fixing broken whitespace, answering Ask, and it shall be given., tirelessly replacing chat mode with content, fixing misspellings, and, when appropriate, making ordinary words into Wiki references.
A very diligent Wiki Gnome regularly searches for EditHints (http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?search=EditHint ) left behind by MetaWikiGnomes and cleans them up or even takes on major projects, such as breaking down the barriers around Walled Gardens.
Wiki Gnomes love to work in the shadows making what some would call Stupid Little Edits. Look at Recent Changes and you may even spot one!
Summarized discussion (details in this page's history):
WHD Remarks that wikignomes of other wikis "tirelessly replace chat mode with content", but that does not happen here. He seems to be in favor of such practice. LES is totally in favor of content rewriting, but is afraid to do it himself and tread on toes. DKF also sounds favorable to content rewriting, only conceding that it's too much work for him to undertake. Robert Abitbol has had very negative experience in other wikis and opposes content rewriting quite strongly.
This summary is experimental.
WHD Cute! However, rather than simply summarizing everyone's views, I had something more like the following in mind:
Begin Experimental Summary
A Wiki Gnome works behind the scenes to tie up loose ends, correct misspellings, add categories, fix broken formatting and links, and turn ordinary words into Wiki references. The word originated at Ward's Wiki [L3 ]. On some wikis, Wiki Gnomes also replace long threads of a dialog with a summary of the conclusions; here at the Tcler's Wiki, such changes can be controversial as some users object to having their words edited. Others are generally in favor of the practice, but do not have time or energy to do so.
End Experimental Summary
This is WHD commenting again. I'd argue that summarized content belongs at the top of the page; discussion should take place at the bottom, following a heading like "Discussion". One can then edit the content at the top to reflect the discussion at the bottom, while leaving the discussion alone. (MediaWiki even has a separate "Talk" page associated with each content page, to make separating these easier.)
DKF: If people want to add a Talk: page to a particular page, they're free to do so.
Robert Abitbol I entirely agree with WHD's suggestion to add a summary at the top of a page. Add (and not replace).
I believe that anyone who wants to add a summary is welcome to do so but not by deleting what other people have written (and make writers furious along the way) like a few idiots wanted to do on Ward's Wiki. The original text should remain as is like the previous writers have said justly so. I believe that deleting other's people's text and putting a summary instead is tantamount to vandalizing. It's as if you take a classic (Gone with the wind for example), you delete the original text and you summarize it. Silly!.
Mind you, at C2 (Ward's wiki), what they do is they delete a certain writer's text. Usually a pro-Microsoft guy, or an excellent writer the clique got to be jealous of. They all say that refactoring is part of the process, the guy should not complain. If the guy does not complain, fine, they keep on refactoring his stuff and soon enough he won't have a line of his on the wiki. If he complains, they go to whine to Ward that the guy does not want to follow the refactoring rules, supposedly one of wiki's canons, cardinal rules.
Ward (the ever naive guy) contacts the delinquent and asks him to leave because he has bothered his little effeminate gnomes. This is all a game of power and manipulation. What happens in the end? The best writers are chased and a few idiots who certainly know to manipulate but unfortunately can't write one single line that makes sense, are left. Since a problem is never solved (you don't solve a problem by giving power to trouble-makers), problems keep on piling up and Ward's wiki turns more and more into a jungle.
Like a lot of forums, boards and wiki webmasters do, what silly Cunningham wants is docile little wikizens who don't say a word and get manipulated by his clique. I certainly never went along with that and I was 100% right to do so. This is tantamount to what exists in little bamboo dictatorships in Africa: as long as you shut your mouth and get manipulated, everything is fine. As soon as you say: wo! Hold on a sec here your troubles start.
Refactoring is part of the manipulation game. You don't want refactoring here believe me...
Don't get me wrong. They do refactor in good faith sometimes. But let me ask: who in his right mind would ever delete the original text and put instead a summary?. The very goal of a summary is to read a small condensed version to determine if we'll read the long one.
The thing is there are a lot of people who are not in their right mind camping at C2. There is not much normality there.
Now, when I hear Ward's wiki as a reference I get a little upset. Ward's wiki is certainly the most instable and conflictual wiki on the internet and it is far from being a model. It's like a Dutch guy going to some instable country in Africa and returning to Holland, one of the most stable countries in the world says: I have seen this done in Africa, a clique burning a rebel at the stakes; let's do it here.
Ward's wiki is not a model believe me. Well if it is a model, it is model of what not to do.
As I said many times, JCW has worked hard to make this WikiT a socially stable and peaceful wiki and I certainly won't go along with silly experiments that will end up in a conflict and will destroy his excellent work. When something works well, why change it?
JCW came along a few years ago and deleted all personal stuff. We now see he was 100% to do so. When a wiki starts getting personal, it is the beginning of the end. I still remember silly George Peter Staplin coming on Wiki to tell people I was a crook because the check I was sending him took time to arrive. I answered and it went on and on and on... Such personal pages used to settle accounts should not exist on a wiki and they don't exist anymore (for the record, Staplin never had the grace to tell everone when his check has arrived but that's besides the point)...
When you refactor stuff, you become personal. You delete people's stuff. You enter their territory. Problems start.
Moreover, one of the best things about TCL/TK (if not the best) are precisely this wiki.
WikiT is the model. C2 is not.
Refactoring is a nono, a huge problem that will turn this wiki into a jungle like Ward's jungle wiki. If you want to make an excellent contribution to this wiki, leave it as is: it works very well the way it is.
As for the chat mode and thread mode vs the literary mode or whatever they called it, I heard the same debate over and over ad nauseam for many months at Ward's wiki.
I hope you won't import this debate here also.
Don't forget that at C2 (Ward's wiki) they have all the time in the world to talk nonsense. WikiT does not have that purpose; the goal is to help each other out in TCL programming and not to discuss silly stuff like they do there.
However, what is really needed is not a summarization but indexes, road maps. The category system (created by Stan Silver at c2.com) is better than nothing but it is pretty complex for most people. On the contrary, indexes are intuitive and are a concept everyone is familiar with.
One can take a subject ex: Using C functions in TCL and write an index listing all pages with this subject matter and give comments for each page. The page would be called: Index: Using C functions in TCL.
Something along the lines of what I did in: Ask and it shall be given -Index-.
Indexes can be very very helpful and in my not so humble opinion, this is what should be done instead of summarization.
For a start, we could rename pages that are in fact indexes adding the suffix -Index.
KBK surely didn't mean to ignite a firestorm of controversy. Neverherless, there are wikignomes about here. Perhaps the local gnomes don't refactor as ruthlessly as some places. But you will still see spelling corrected. categories added. spam removed, format blunders rectified, links unbroken, square brackets doubled, and occasional windmills tilted at.
DRH thinks that Robert Abitbol doth complain too much. When one adds words to a wiki, those words cease to become ones own. They enter the public domain and are fair game for anybody else to change (and hopefully improve). I think the rule should be: Thou shalt not become possessive of what one writes on a wiki. If you are looking for a place to display your thoughts and your ideas and you want to make sure everybody understands they are yours then start your own webpage or blog. Wiki is not the place for individualism. Wiki is about the collective. It is about the hive mind. Wiki is about the wisdom of crowds, not of individuals.
Robert Abitbol Baloney! DRH This is the sort of silly wiki communism that has been the source of 99.99 % of Ward's wiki problems. It is because of such silliness that C2.com is a mess and the worse jungle on the Internet. What you stated is the perfect recipe for disaster, wishful thinking that leads nowhere.
This is a technical site. There is no need for rewriting.
aa speaks out: That opinion seems quite illogical. Technical topics require editing to improve clarity, correct errors, and add necessary background information.
On WikiT you post a question for help; people answer you. No one comes around and deletes your answer because it is the collective.
On WikiT, you post a few lines of code. Other users add a few other lines, they add comment.
On WikiT, you create a page on a technical subject. Other users add to it or they don't. No one comes and deletes your page rudely like they do on C2.
On WikiT, JCW has made it clear that this is a technical site. A few years ago, he deleted personal contributions and everything has been quiet ever since. That was a great move I thought. It was straight, blunt, radical and efficient.
WikiT is about adding, solving problems, getting and giving help. And not about deleting people's edits, not about sending bad vibs.
Also, the decision to keep all versions of a page is excellent.
There is no collective here.. We are a bunch of individual writers writing individually. Everyone respects each other; everyone respects each other's edits.
And that is the way it should be.
And that is why this Wiki works so well.
Does "this Wiki" refer to "WikiT"? Why pollute this page with comments about WikiT in the first place? Try not to take it too personally if such irrelevance is quietly pruned by wikignomes in the interest of maintaining an appropriate focus.
Robert Abitbol KBK, you did not ignite a firestorm of controversy. In my case, you opened an old wound as the expression goes. It's not your fault, it is mine. You only made an honest proposal.
Besides, you are 100% right. I find those you call local gnomes respectful and efficient. They do what needs to be done: they perform the functions they are supposed to perform. We are talking about fellows like Larry Virden who is mature, articulate and tremendously respectful of others. With Larry setting the tone and doing what gnomes are supposed to do, we cannot go wrong.
In C2.com, gnomes want power: they want to own the place and indeed they ended up owning the place with Ward Cunningham's blessing. No such thing here. So let's not repeat C2's problems and let's not import their silliness here.
As for the silly concept of refactoring, you all are familiar with abstracts of university papers. Abstracts are simply summaries intended to guide the student to the right paper. Imagine if one decided to summarize all university papers and afterwards burn the full text! Silly. This is exactly what they are doing at C2. Worse! This is what some people have been fighting for for years! They want to refactor the whole wiki!
Why doesn't Cunningham object? Because he does not care about the contents. As long as his wiki remains on internet, this is what counts for him.
The model of what not to do is C2.com. Therefore I am a little angry when someone goes to C2.com and comes back here saying: I've seen this done at C2.
The models for wikis are: WikiT, WikiPedia and Bookshelved.
Besides, refactoring (vandalizing someone's contribution) would personalize WikiT a lot. And this is precisely what JCW wants to avoid. And justly so. WikiT is a wiki to exchange code, advice on TCL. It's not a place to fight X or Y, to complain publicly against X or Y, to establish a personal discussion with X or Y, not a place to gang-up against X or Y, not a place to bully anyone not a place to get power of any kind.
Everyone here is equal. No one is more equal than others to paraphrase George Orwell. We all respect each other; we all mind our own business.
As a conclusion, I propose the following:
1)Anyone who wants to summarize a page is free to so as long as he/she puts the summary on top and does not vandalize anyone's contribution.
2)Anyone who wants to write an index is free to do so. You won't see me writing an index because I am not at all qualified to do so.
As for the rest, JCW's vision is excellent. No personalization of the wiki, no problem.. WikiT is about TCL programming. Period.
This is sound management.
If Robert Abitbol doesn't like other people summarizing his words, could /he/ please summarize the terrible spam he's put here, in the hopes that it may be short enough for someone to actually read without his irrelevant ranting putting them to sleep?
Robert Abitbol To anonymous 65.6.136.250.
If my words put you to sleep, do not read them. No one forces you to read anything.
You did not read properly (since I understand you fell asleep long before the end :-)): I am not against anyone summarizing my words; I am against those who delete a contribution and replace it with a silly summary that means nothing. This is called refactoring, one of the silliest concepts I have ever witnessed in my entire life.
I did digress trying to put into words why JCW's concept of a wiki worked so well.
A last thing: a previous writer has said that he was sorry he opened what he called a storm of controversy. He did not. To the contrary; he raised an important question and he got a few good answers.
And, to boot, he gave an insomniac the chance to sleep reading my words. I did better than tranquillizers. Perhaps I should send him a bill!
So all is well in the land of WikiT.
aa is well and truly lost. Where is "WikiT" and why does it rate such commentary on the Tcler's Wiki?
MG WikiT is the name used for Wiki software written in Tcl. It is not the name of the Tcler's Wiki, though that's what I believe Robert Abitbol means when he uses the term. (This would be a good example of why editing incorrect or inaccurate posts is important on the Wiki, incidently.)
DKF: Saying WikiT instead of The Tcler's Wiki is precisely like saying MediaWiki instead of Wikipedia. WikiT doesn't have opinions, though the people who put content in The Tcler's Wiki do. OTOH, the 'gnomes round here aren't ruthless refactorizers (except for splitting stuff off to separate pages sometimes, but never with intentional data loss); too much other work to do, and usually people's words stand best on their own.
Plus we do keep a revision history (with a lag of about a day). :-)
Robert Abitbol I agree 100% + you said it very well, very elegantly, DKF: words stand best on their own.
You wrote an excellent definition of wikignoming on your homepage: If you find your Wiki page has been mysteriously edited to look better (while not losing any of the content) then the chances are I've been at it... :^)
While not losing any of the content.
On this wiki, the Tclers wiki (and not WikiT :-)), Larry Virden and yourself, Donal, do precisely what a wikignome should do: you correct mistakes, you add links, you correct links etc. You are not intrusive by nature; you both are discrete, polite, together. That is wiki gnoming at its best. Thanks for the excellent work, by the way!
Therefore my advice to anyone here who would like to gnome holds in 6 words: Do like Larry and Donald do.
As for refactoring, I sincerely believe that only nuts, inter-nuts as I call them, are capable of deleting, vandalizing pages and pages of text replacing them with a silly clinical summary. I know a few teclers and they are just too smart and too normal to buy such a silly idea.