[mthoms]

We need to make an effort to distinguish “this is a thing for humans” vs “this is a thing for bots” in our naming IMHO. In that respect, “open wiki” is not such a great name. “Agent Wiki” or similar would be better.

Without such a qualifier, “wiki” carries a strong connotation of (usually collaborative) human involvement. That’s literally what it’s famous for.

Thats just my $0.02 on the naming. I definitely think it’s a worthwhile idea. All the best.

[salviati]

I recently noticed people think "wiki" is a set of deeply interlinked documents. But to me it means ability to edit without logging in.

[Ferret7446]

I don't know of any wikis that let you edit without logging in. That is simply not viable, it'd be like trying to live without an immune system.

[layer8]

The original C2 wiki did that for two decades.

[uw_rob]

Wikipedia?

[Fabricio20]

You try that in 2026 and not only is your changes getting rolled back but your IP address is likely banned in advance anyway. Though to be fair I hear that even logged in your changes get rolled back, something about "reddit style moderators power tripping".

Though on the naming definition I think wiki is a good term for interlinking documents about _something_. I often associate the term wiki with game wikis, which more often than not at least require some form of account to edit. Wikipedia feels like an outlier (both in not being specific to any topic as well as technically allowing anonymous edits) even if it presumably is the first/originator of the name!

[xingped]

Yeah, Wikipedia is famously hostile to new contributors. It's a wonder they still continue existing and also have the gall the beg for donations. Imagine if reddit begged for donations?

I don't even really think about wikis as a set of interlinked documents moreso just as a repository of information. In the context of games whose communities created wikis, at least. Usually the discoverability of and interlinking of documents in said community wikis is pretty piss-poor though.