[HelloNurse]

That the rebuilt C2 wiki doesn't work is a fact; the problems are, unfortunately, so obvious and so serious that the first impression is uncommonly bad, there is no need to look further.

The "value" of the old site is lost, the "potential" for improvement doesn't matter and doesn't exist, the "innovation" is a failed experiment that shouldn't have been "released early".

I just don't understand this leniency towards a bad implementation of a bad idea.

[mbrock]

Is it the whole concept of a federated wiki that you think is a "bad idea"?

When you say that the "'potential' for improvement doesn't matter," what exactly do you mean?

Doesn't matter to whom? For what reason?

I am lenient and curious about most attempts at innovation in the field of web-based communication and collaboration.

Personally speaking, I like Ward Cunningham; I admire his previous work; I am interested in federation; and I generally encourage open source development of interesting communication tools.

When you say "the 'innovation' is a failed experiment," I read that as a claim that hopefully—and with effort—will turn out to be mistaken.

If you think there is nothing to learn from it, that's up to you.

[HelloNurse]

A federated wiki consists of three main parts: a federated database of content (which is supposed to be the interesting part), a user interface for reading that content, and a fairly different but unavoidably related user interface for editing and administration (both likely to resemble their counterparts in a non-federated wiki, but a bit more complex because of the richer information model).

Of these three components, all criticism of the C2 rewrite is focused only on the most accessible: the reading user interface, which is blighted by the fundamental bad idea of imposing a bizarre, dysfunctional SPA gateway on one of the most pure examples of hypertext in existence. Only this user interface is an impractical, grossly failed experiment; it's obvious that pages like those in the old C2 wiki, possibly with a few extra buttons and links to deal with federation-related metadata and features, would have been a far superior user interface.

Nobody complains about the idea of a federated wiki (either in general or referring this particular design) because, with the ugly bugs and bad user experience, it's simply irrelevant; even the editing user interface is practically hidden behind a wall of inconvenience and mostly ignored in comments.

Personally, I think federated wikis are a promising organization for the public web, but they won't be like this.

Actual software and sites, particularly when they replace a very good predecessor like in this case, should be judged by their actual quality, not by enthusiasm levels or fantasies about the future. As a production wiki, the C2 replacement has been published by mistake and it should be reverted ASAP and killed with fire, but as a research testbed it deserves rework and further experimentation: with a good user interface, which remains to be determined, people would be able to exercise the underlying federated wiki database, which I suspect to be good.

[mbrock]

That seems like a more reasonable position.

However:

(1) The federated wiki has not replaced C2. Ward has put up a notice saying that he plans to do so at some unspecified time in the future. Right?

(2) You claimed earlier that "the 'potential' for improvement doesn't matter and doesn't exist," which I point out is excessively negative and dejecting.

(3) Wiki has always been a research testbed and a place for experimentation. That's why the whole thing is done in public in such a way that any interested person may participate and give input. To help such projects, if one has any reason to believe that they may be valuable—as you now seem to agree—it is more productive to give constructive feedback through appropriate channels.