We Should Recommend New Users to Pre-configured TiddlyWiki Editions (Long post!)

[Scott_Sauyet]

You have some good points here, but in the end, I mostly disagree.

We recently had a brief discussion on this in on this starting with a post in Why is TiddlyWiki Beaten by Obsidian?.

More than a year ago, there were some really great discussions on creating and maintaining community editions. Even though the discussion has fizzled, I think it would be the right approach: Offer a large number of editions useful for different purposes, with the empty edition always prominent among them. I imagined reinventing the GettingStarted text to look more like this:

Choose a starter edition for a personal journal. a public blog , a time-management system , a project planning tool, a documentation site, a link curation wiki, a recipe manager , or one of 38 other categories. Or choose to start on your own by clicking here to download an empty copy of Tiddlywiki.

(note: all links are fake! )

To me, that is a much better way to go. We wouldn’t usually try to create generic editions, but ones tailored to specific needs.

I wouldn’t object to keeping alongside those editions a collection of starter packs, which are less involved than the kind of editions mentioned above, but which might make TW more ergonomic for certain types of users. If I understand tidgi correctly, that is where I would place it. But I wouldn’t promote it above the empty edition or other such starter packs.

@dongrentianyu

First, they need to install the CPL plugin or other plugin sources; otherwise, they can only access official plugins and won’t be able to get other plugins.

Interesting. I only use such plugin sources when that’s the only supported way to use a particular plugin. Usually, I visit that plugin’s page, find a link to the plugin itself and drag it to my wiki.

@dongrentianyu

[T]here are some plugins that I think every TiddlyWiki should install. For example, $:/plugins/flibbles/relink. Without this plugin and its series of plugins, updating links would be very troublesome. Another example is $:/plugins/kookma/commander. Without this plugin, batch modification would become extremely difficult. And $:/plugins/oeyoews/tiddlywiki-codemirror-6, which I think is the best editor plugin for TiddlyWiki at present.

Relink is my most commonly required plugin. But these days, I still use it on fewer than half the wikis I create. Much of the time I don’t need it. So why bother installing it? I’ve used commander twice total; it’s certainly not installed by default. I really need to try some version of codemirror. I use the underlying library in many projects. But I’ve simply never missed it in TW.

So your initial list of indispensable plugins are all ones I don’t want installed by default. I certainly would not want to burden a new user with them without their understanding.

@dongrentianyu

No one will deny that TiddlyWiki has rich features. But before getting into wikitext and widgets, shouldn’t users first use TiddlyWiki to write down some notes and then start their TiddlyWiki journey?

While I still have a personal and a work Notes wiki, neither of them has much to do with my common daily use of TW. I don’t think we would be justified in assuming that new users want TW for that purpose.

@dongrentianyu

I don’t agree with this view. The reason is simple. We all hope that TiddlyWiki can exist actively. This requires continuously attracting new users to join. When new users join, they will put forward new requirements, new solutions, and new promotion methods.

I guess I don’t share this. I think TW is great. I love to hear of new people adopting it. But I want people to choose it because of what it is, a quirky, powerful, infinitely customizable tool. Those who want a turn-key solution are almost certainly better served by other tools. To me, that’s fine.