Let's brainstorm a name for the next version of TiddlyWiki

#81

Ha! Good idea.

Though that would need some explication, perhaps?

TT

#82

Thank you @ohok that’s a highly inventive proposal. Most proposals only cover renaming TiddlyWiki itself, but I think it would indeed be necessary to rename “tiddler” at the same time. The backwards compatibility aspect is good, too: we would still be able to use “TW” as an abbreviation, and .tid for tidbit files.

3 Likes
#83

also, tidwiki.com is available & inexpensive on google domains

1 Like
#84

The word “tidbit” feels alien to me - I always used to use the word “titbit”. I think “tidbit” is a North American thing (ref). However - who cares! There, I feel better now.

TitWwiki might attract twitchers.

TidWiki would allow the file extension for <nodal-elements) to stay as .tid - the file extension .tit would just be silly.

It’s interesting that searches appear to work: Here, Let Me Google That For You! Teach People How to Google

Would have to work on the backronym.

1 Like
#85

Just in case, I’ve gone ahead and registered tidwiki.{org|net|com} for a year.

7 Likes
#86

It may have been said elsewhere (didn’t get a chance to read all of the comments), but the part I like least about the name TiddlyWiki is the Wiki part.

For many (and indeed in the definition of wiki), wikis are collaborative solutions. I find TiddlyWiki to be first and foremost a personal knowledge management platform (or digital garden, if you prefer that terminology), and many others have suggested the same. TiddlylWiki generally isn’t first designed for collaborative editing (yes, some plugins do allow that, but still…). TiddlyWiki is great to share one’s knowledge, but wikis are meant for collaborative editing…

Whenever I introduce TiddlyWiki to others, I am forced to add something along the lines of “it’s not really a wiki, in spite of its name”…

That said, I like tiddlers as a concept (nugget of knowledge), and don’t mind the Tiddly part of the name at all. Maybe we can simply drop the Wiki part of the name, nothing else changes?

1 Like
#87

I would like to add tweaky.wiki to the possibilities
The outstanding feature of tw to me is that it can be transformed in whatever I need.

edited…
Somewhat (and some etymologic research) later I decided that it is not such a good idea :weary:

1 Like
#88

That “wikitionary” definition overreaches by ADDING “collaborative” to it’s definition of “wiki” as a noun.

Their etymology citation correctly notes that “wiki” is abbreviated from Ward Cunningham’s “WikiWikiWeb” usage. However, if you follow the link to Cunningham’s correspondence in which he discusses, at length, the origins of the word, you will not find any reference to “collaboration” anywhere.

While the meaning of words can, and does, evolve over time, it is clear from Cunningham’s coinage that his original intent was to emphasize the “quick” aspect of a “wiki website”; i.e., a website that can be constructed and modified quickly, without the burdensome specification and engineering development process that typically precedes the creation of more conventional “non-wiki” websites.

For my own take on the meaning of “wiki”, see Inside TiddlyWiki: What’s In A Name and the subsequent pages, The Wiki Way, What Is TiddlyWiki?, and MicroContent: Smaller is Better.

Please note that I have no objections to discussing new names for TiddlyWiki, but I also have no problem with the use of “Tiddly” (small) and “Wiki” (quick) as a clear, concise description of it’s primary functionality.

-e

6 Likes
#89

My try:

TW∞
your brain recorder
  • ∞ is the infinite potential of customisation AND the recording tape AND the lifetime companion;
  • I agree that wiki is associated with collaboration (Wikipedia);
  • so just keep meaningless letters (maybe give them new significations: True Wizard…);
  • a good subtitle/tagline can do what the name can’t
  • I have no clue how to pronounce it :upside_down_face:
2 Likes
#90

I heartily support the name tidwiki and even more heartily support calling tiddlers tidbits - even if we stick with the name tiddlywiki.

3 Likes
#91

Playing with names without the wiki in the name:

tidhome is a personal last name but does not seem to be in use for products.
tidcentral - like a central station or headquarters
tidquarters is not an option - search results show viagra and erectile dysfunction in the results.
tidpool - A pool of tids saved in a webpage. Or pooling them together with others. Sounds like tadpole and tidepool and Deadpool, so it sounds “familiar”. Also, tiddlers were little fish, right? So pool in the name creates some continuity with that, for those who know the meaning of tiddler.

#92

Personally I would prefer to keep Wiki in the name. I’ve never thought of a wiki as being collaborative by definition. I always tend to call it my “personal wiki” when im talking about it with people. its a common enough phrase that it has a wikipedia article.

IMO, the defining characteristic of a wiki is “individual documents that are interlinked into a web”. By extension, TidWiki is a wiki for all the tidbits of information you toss into it.

Also want to reiterate the advantage of searcahbility. TidWiki is close enough to Tiddlywiki that most search engines will still give you the results you expect. Theres over a decade of Tiddlywiki discussions out there to search for so thats a pretty big advantage IMO

2 Likes
#93

I agree this is a critical aspect of Wikis but the other is the hyperlinks between content and on this parameter tiddlywiki is more than competent. I have being hopeful the collaborative part would develop, and despite many “honourable mentions” we are just “not there yet”.

  • Not out of the box, easily hostable multiuser wikis.

Let’s brainstorm a name for the next version of TiddlyWiki ?
Sure;

But lets have a version worthy of a new name if we are going to change it, then the name should reflect its features.

1 Like
#94

Right.

WikiWiki ... ("quickly")

… was taken from the Hawaiian language (A Polynesian language).

A marvellous linguistic culture in which men (like @EricShulman ) can dance in grass skirts.

TT

3 Likes
#95

I think “WIKI” fits many use cases.
Especially when the version you use is off-the-shelf AND ready-to-do.

When it comes to “infinite tweaking / customisation” (the meat of the sandwich = the real bespoke activity—fully seen in this discussion group) my feel is “Wiki” is NOT right at all.

Why? Well you can see the issue on review sites for “Wiki tools”.
I have never seen one yet that presents TW accurately.

I dunno where to go from here; but knowing origins and blockages matters, perhaps?

Just a comment
TT

#96

I’m sure I’ve written about this elsewhere but the story for me is that I encountered the original C2 wiki back in 1997 and was immediately transfixed by what I saw as two almost entirely orthogonal features:

  • The way that wikitext (in those days CamelCase) made linking be part of the punctuation of writing. Previously, linking had been a matter of selecting text and clicking a button to bring up a modal with the link destination, which shattered the writing experience
  • The audacious approach to authentication/authorisation of giving write access to everyone, and relying on voluntary human labour to clear up any accidents or malicious incidents. It was the first time I had so clearly seen the architecture of a piece of software be shaped by an understanding of online community behaviour

So, I always saw the word “wiki” as covering both of those characteristics.

Those two features relate to TiddlyWiki differently:

  • TiddlyWiki takes the wikitext ideas of the C2 wiki and runs with them as far as possible, to the point that wikitext can be used to compose powerful user interfaces
  • TiddlyWiki takes the community ideas of the C2 wiki and turns them on their head. The “Tiddly” part isn’t just about the size of tiddlers, it also refers to a different modal of community and collaboration, where users or small groups work on their own wikis, with lots of flexibility in how to share them.It is interesting to note that Ward Cunningham, the inventor of the original wiki took things in the same direction with his Smallest Federated Wiki project that started at the same time as TiddlyWiki 5. They both have in common that they extend the idea of wikitext but completely eschew the original wiki idea of a shared space

For a long time, this has been explicitly stated at https://classic.tiddlywiki.com/#TiddlyWiki

Unlike most wikis, TiddlyWiki isn’t about group collaboration; it is a wiki in the sense of elevating linking be a part of the punctuation of writing

But that’s all history! My position now is that the word “wiki” isn’t very helpful for us because for most people it just evokes “Wikipedia”. (Or “WikiLeaks” – at the height of the controversy one of the staff at Osmosoft was entering the USA and was asked by a border agent “TiddlyWikiWiki? Isn’t that illegal?” :smile:)

8 Likes
#97

For me, the Wiki part of TiddlyWiki was most important. From previous experience of editing hobby-related wikis that other people went through the trouble of setting up, TW’s easy-editing and easy-linking wiki software without a server-based wiki was the main point.

As a non-coder, I used TiddlyWiki Classic for years as a personal wiki with only minor CSS changes. TW5’s many built-in tools let me experiment beyond the most basic usage but that was still years later with a pandemic that temporarily gave me more free time to learn.

The “offline personal wiki” idea still feels central to me as the main draw for this software. Everything else is a very welcome bonus that I am only recently able to appreciate.

4 Likes
#98

I subscribe to what Brian said.
The same goes for me: the fact that there was wiki in the name attracted me.

Nowadays there are wikipedia-like sites for every hobby, game or popular content, so much so that as soon as I think of a wiki I don’t think about the collaborative aspect, but about the content and how convenient it is to navigate through it. Precisely for this reason I chose to use TiddlyWiki, to be able to navigate my ideas with the same convenience

2 Likes
#99

To me now TiddlyWiki is defining what a Wiki is, as much as any other wiki has, in part because it fully subscribes to the hyperlinking of early days that gave rise to the WWW in the first place, and it puts the capture of information and its relationships in the hands of common people. It is fine for it to be “tiddly” in comparison to Wikipedia and any site built on top of Wikimedia.

One of the strongest reasons for me now is it is democratising access to make your own software, for personal, private or published information way beyond a typical Blog or Content Management System CMS.

Despite the detractors about the name, and this re-occurring conversation, I thing tiddlywiki continues to wear it’s name better over time like wearing in some good boots.

  • I would be happy for key releases to get their own name without dropping tiddlywiki and as I have argued before there is no trouble expanding its meaning with tag lines such as “The TiddlyWiki Platform” to show how serious it can be.
1 Like
#100

Can I agree and disagree? :slight_smile:

I like your points @TW_Tones. But, at the same time, out in the “universe of wikis” — especially in that part of it concerned with “overviews of available wiki systems” — it is widely NOT understood. Descriptions of it are seriously inadequate.

That is my impression. Maybe subjective? Maybe not?

I do think @jeremyruston’s comments very apposite …

I think that is the point.

There is one lingo about “wikis” internal to the TW community you are strong on.
BUT there is another, broader, one — evident in presentational issues in the wider-web-world — where TW gets, I think, short-shrift.

So, I guess, my focus is on TW’s wider reception.
There I think it is poorly represented as a “wiki system”.
You get presented a cut-down version.

That is because it is far more than a wiki system???

Basta
TT