Wiki Mind Wipe Repair

After the WikiMindWipe incident JeffGrigg led (and did most of ;-) a repair of all the pages where SamGentle had deleted his content. This was not a wholesale restoration of Sam's contributions: It was primarily a fixup of other people's comments, as it was very common for people to reply to or discuss Sam's comments.

I've noticed that people did respond to Sam by name quite often. I think this indicates that most people really did care, even if some people didn't hear it in their "voices." -- JeffGrigg

Thanks for this page, Jeff. I agree that naming => caring on many occasions. I also agree with dropping Sam-Gentle as an option for repairers. --RichardDrake

See also: WikiStroke, SmallestFederatedWiki as a solution to mind-wiping

For some, not having sufficient power or control over their contributions to be able to remove them might be considered a reason not to contribute.

As far as I can work out this goes back to an episode in about 2005. -- JohnFletcher

The concept (WikiMindWipe) was coined during its first occurrence around the Summer of 1999 WhereFrom - WikiMindWipe - see WikiMindWipeDiscussion

In the SmallestFederatedWiki, you can openly contribute content which can be shared by federation, copied, changed, added to and otherwise manipulated to your hearts content. It is your own, when a federated site is claimed by you, and only you can make a page or a contribution to it exactly what you want it to be. Points of view in a FederatedWiki do not have to be neutral, accurate or factual, they can be simply TheWayIseeIt?. I see a place for neutrality, contradiction, dialogue, and contention, and in a Federation, you can maintain links to all of them. Another feature allows a preservation of a page's development and history. As it is right now, you can even format and present using styles.

A WikiMindWipe is in my way of thinking a mental tantrum one may have about what has been contributed to a wiki, and has been practiced by many as a last or final statement, usually of not being satisfied with one's wiki-experience or that the experience has finally come to a bitter or reluctant departure from it.

I find that a wiki which has things that work and things that do not, such as the first one, can be used both as a place of collaboration and contention, holy-wars, strong opinions, tolerance and in-tolerance on-topic and off-topic, fair and un-fair, as a place of meeting as it were, as a SpeakersCorner? or Soap-box, while one may also utilized and maintain a personally pleasing version of the thing or matters related to it in a personally controlled, yet shared environment. --DonaldNoyes

CategoryWikiHistory