Annoying Wiki Feature Vote

Most annoying thing about Wiki

One vote per person, please. If you want to reactivate an item from last year's vote, please copy-and-paste it into this list but reset the counter to 1 (if you're voting for it; otherwise 0). Thank you.

2005 vote

No numbers in WikiNames (WikiWords) So that Jan011970, 11Sep2001, and 19491101 can't be pages. (1)
- Come to think of it, underscores_in_words or even hyphens-in-words would solve one-letter-word problems.
Incomplete TabRefactoring: colon-space should do indented text as well as tab-space-colon-space. (1)
Your UserName not displayed when you're editing a page (0)
ThreadMess (i.e., ThreadMode out of control) (1)
Phrase search, still. There are lots of searches that require a phrase of at least two words to be meaningful. [2] - and Google no longer loves Wiki:-(

2004 vote

Tab reliance (4) Things are changing: see TabRefactoring.
Can't use AGoodName or AGN for a page name (1)
Lack of HTML support (1)
No HTML anchor ("#" link) equivalent (0)
Lack of formal logins (vandals) (0)
- Weaker solution: Display both UserName(if set) and IP address for edits(1)
Polls like these (0)
No evolution of the software, no improvement, a silly WabiSabi attitude (1)
No action against trouble-makers (0)
People not understanding the medium (eg, using ThreadMode) (2)
ThreadMess (i.e., ThreadMode out of control) (1)
Your UserName not displayed when you're editing a page (0)
A need for some sort of classification system to make things easier to find (0)
People who get all up in a snit over the tragedy of "OrphanPages" (1) Getting in a snit over the way some people delete them simply for being Orphans, or getting in a snit due to the amount of them? Either way.
SixSingleQuotes (1) ?
...

Couldn't think of a short, snappy phrase for this annoying phenomenon: On this particular wiki, ideas evolve, which is a huge advance over UseNet-like forums, but there is too much mutation (i.e. noise) generated, such that good ideas tend to decay over time, and good contributors tend to get fed up and leave over time. It seems like sites like WikiPedia have overcome this degenerative mutation, but on the other hand, perhaps they don't evolve as many ideas as this wiki does. Maybe it's a genuine dilemma? Or maybe there's a solution that allows for both. I don't know, but it's kind of annoying. (1)

Is the phrase you are looking for "TragedyOfTheCommons"?

I'm not sure, but my instinct tells me it's somewhat different.

I think I know what you are talking about. I personally have watered down a few good pages because

I couldn't resist the urge to "add my two cents worth",
I didn't have a personal anecdote or story or first hand experience to add, so
I added "yet another analysis"

Let me add yet another analysis. I think the original complaint is based on the law of the wiki jungle: the most stubbornly defended signal survives. It goes like this:

Great wisdom is shared by someone of average stubbornness.
A less wise but more stubborn contributor dilutes that wisdom.
The source(s) of the original wisdom grow weary of defending and restoring it.
The diluted wisdom remains.

This is annoying, but it isn't the most annoying aspect of wiki. Tab reliance is much more annoying. Don't expect wiki to accumulate the most wise signals. Expect it to accumulate the most stubbornly defended signals.

But you're all supposed to defend the more wise person's text. Strength in numbers. Humans are social animals.

I think there's an inverse proportion relationship between wisdom and stubbornness. The wise people tend to move on long before the stubborn people.

Rather than complain about "thread mode", fix it. Find a long discussion and extract the arguments and examples given into a more concise and readable format. I would recommend that you not replace the original, at least not at first, but merely show a better alternative they may grow to eventually replace or overshadow the threaded version.

See WikiVotingDiscussion for general conversation on the efficacy of polls and votes on Wiki.

CategoryWiki