What’s in a name? In the case of ‘wiki’, lots of things.
Anyone who’s been watching the news will have heard about Wikileaks by now. Wikipedia shares the generic “wiki-” prefix in its name, but there’s no relation. Occasionally even major news sources like the BBC get this wrong, which can lead to serious confusion, even when it’s quickly fixed.
If anyone has a claim to the word “wiki”, it would be the Hawaiian people. In the Hawaiian language, wiki means “quick”. The words “wiki wiki” on a shuttle bus in Honolulu inspired software engineer Ward Cunningham to name a revolutionary piece of software – the “WikiWikiWeb” – in 1995. This software allowed people to instantly edit web pages, collaboratively.
Wikipedia was created six years later, based on the same principles. By that time, the word “wiki” was used already by a ton of different wiki software implementations. Today, you can go to the “WikiMatrix” website to compare them all. They have names like Wikidot, TWiki, or Wikispaces. Moreover, there are many, many content websites that use “wiki” in their names. Among them are Wikihow, Wikitravel, WikiAnswers, and Wikia.
Most of these projects are completely unrelated to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is operated by the non-profit Wikimedia Foundation, which was founded by Jimmy Wales in 2003. The Wikimedia Foundation operates a number of other free knowledge projects: Wikimedia Commons, Wiktionary, Wikibooks, Wikisource, Wikiquote, Wikispecies, Wikinews, and Wikiversity. It also organizes and supports development of the MediaWiki open source software.
The names of Wikimedia’s projects are trademarked. The word “wiki” isn’t: anyone can use it. Wikileaks and most other projects with “wiki” in their name have no relationship with us. If you see news organizations making this error, please email them or post a comment pointing to this blog post.
Gabe, who believes that criticism of Wikileaks can lead to “the permanent demise of free speech as well as journalistic freedom” clearly doesn’t understand journalism, much less “journalistic freedom.” Those of us who work in the field know that the first obligation of journalism is to seek the response of all involved parties before publishing. To do otherwise is to turn rumor into fact, suggestion into reality, and – too often – sheer dirt into fool’s gold. By Gabe’s description, it would be an expression of “journalistic freedom” were I to break into his home, steal his checkbook, and publish his account numbers, passwords, and other vital information without first giving him the chance to explain why I shouldn’t.
For Wikileaks to acquire privileged information isn’t necessarily reprehensible; for them to publish it without first giving the State Department the opportunity to explain the consequent risks is a violation of all journalistic standards. I’m not saying Wikileaks would or should cede final responsibility for the decision to publish; I’m only saying that publishing without any regard for consequences is the act of the foolish, the childish, the desperately cynical, or the selfishly irresponsible.
no, gabe — answers.com says “enkuklios paideia” is the source of the word enclycopedia, with paideia meaning a general education, and i think that’s a lot more plausible …