Wikipedia talk:Don't abbreviate "Wikipedia" as "Wiki"!

Don't abbreviate "Wikipedia" as "Wiki"! There are other wikis out there – Wikipedia is just one of them.

Just vernacular?

You shouldn't call tissue "Kleenex", nor carbonated drinks "cola", but people do anyway. It's just vernacular. Does it really matter? --70.192.222.59 (talk) 22:06, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

A more apt analogy would be using the capitalized word "Tissue" and expecting people to know you're referring only to the Kleenex brand. It's fine if you're comfortable with that (this is just an essay after all, not a policy), but I think many of us find it confusing at first glance, not to mention a mutilation of the language. Equazcion (talk) 04:05, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

It is against the interest of authoritarian structures around the world - in rich and poor, Western and non-Western countries - for ordinary people to understand the political empowerment implications of wiki technology. My guess is that authoritarian structures - e.g. television shows on "the latest internet developments" - try to present the Wikipedia as a set of static web pages or as a set of web pages that are worthless because they are openly editable, hiding the structured nature of the editing process. My second speculation is that promoting the word "Wiki" to mean "the Wikipedia" is a way to make it more difficult to explain the concept of a wiki - analogous to the way that promoting the word "Internet" to mean only the world wide web makes it more difficult for web users to realise that the Internet is much more flexible and diverse than just the web.

Let's put it another way. Do we want to discourage Wikipedia readers from creating their own wikis or editing other wikis than Wikipedia? If they think that Wiki = Wikipedia, then it's more difficult for them to imagine other wikis than Wikipedia. Boud (talk) 22:57, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

BS

I do not care if it is wiki, wikia, wikipeida-it's a name, you do need to be PC (polictcally correct, thi is wiki, it is commonly refered to as this. Hey Boys and Girls (Welcome to the Show...) ° 06:27, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Your butchering the English language made my neck snap because of the twitching. 96.42.232.4 (talk) 22:09, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

WiKpedia

Another annoyance is how people don't pronounce the i, it's WikIpedia not WiKpedia. argh. -- œ^™ 19:16, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

If you don’t mind speaking in an exaggerated drawl, try saying “Wickerpedia” until the heretic relents! :D -BRPXQZME (talk) 23:14, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Um

Whenever i google something and i want to make sure i get the Wikipedia page for it, i always search "<the thing i want> wiki", because i know it will take me to wikipedia. in a sense, wikipedia IS the only wiki. and shut up, i know its not, there's bulbapedia, encyclopedia dramattica, etc, but as far as what most people know, or what google knows, wiki means wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DJLO (talk • contribs) 09:33, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Wiki may work incidentally, but if you're looking for wikipedia results you'll probably get more relevant hits if you put in the word "wikipedia" instead of just "wiki". That's just a guess though, I could be wrong. Wikipedia is certainly the most famous wiki, for sure. Agreed there. Equazcion (talk) 09:57, 9 Nov 2009 (UTC)

"Blasphemous" use of "wiki"

Since there are many possible wikis that User 1 could be referring to, and since "wiki" is not a name but a generic description for many different websites and software packages, this usage is wrong, blasphemous, offensive, and highly discouraged.

This is the ironic contemporary usage of the word "blasphemous" referred to on the page linked to. Since most people will take "blasphemous" to refer to religion, shouldn't this really be replaced with another word or dropped altogether? — Paul G (talk) 11:51, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

The entire usage section is worded rather outrageously and tongue-in-cheek. It's meant to be slightly humorous. If a substantial number of people actually find the word's use offensive here it can be removed. Equazcion (talk) 11:57, 9 Nov 2009 (UTC)

Flattery

Isn't it just analogous to the inverse of how "google (v)" took over "search on the internet?" In that case you should be flattered that people are renaming Wikipedia as the one true "Wiki." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.56.121.33 (talk) 00:33, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

It's not so flattering to be the only one of your kind to be known. Only the shallowest, most vain person would find validation in that. I would rather find flattery in a comment made by someone who is aware of the array of choices available and calls us the best out of all of them. Equazcion (talk) 00:37, 10 Nov 2009 (UTC)

Prescriptivism is futile.

Language evolves. Deal with it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.139.7.56 (talk • contribs) 12:59, 19 February 2011

This argument, language evolves[, so there's nothing you can do about it] is a false one promulgated by many linguists and others. Dogs evolve, so there's nothing we can doodoo about it? While there are linguistic forces that resist or perhaps even defy conscious control, this hardly proves that no changes can be dierected or re-directed.211.225.33.104 (talk) 00:10, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

He didn't say no change is possible, only that language evolves and you must deal with it. 31.50.70.172 (talk) 20:10, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

How is it offensive?

This essay refers to calling Wikipedia "Wiki" as being offensive. I understand it's ambiguous and confusing, but I don't see how anyone could be offended by it. Care to clarify? flarn2006 [u t c] 02:49, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

If anything on this page doesn't make sense, assume it's part of the humor :) Equazcion ^(talk) 12:01, 27 Oct 2011 (UTC)

Personal attack?

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ADon%27t_abbreviate_Wikipedia_as_Wiki&action=historysubmit&diff=463651231&oldid=444232475

The sentence in question:

"To any seasoned Wikipedian or reasonably advanced Internet user, hearing someone use "Wiki" as a nickname for Wikipedia is tantamount to hearing someone say "Human" while expecting their audience to know they are referring specifically to Joan Rivers. As you can see, this doesn't work out."

A user claims that this is an "unfunny" personal attack and removed the sentence. I've reverted that edit. If you see a personal attack here you're missing the point of the sentence. The point is that you can't use a general word ("human") and expect people to know you're referring to one specific member of the category (Joan Rivers).

The humor comes from the use of an obscure, excessively specific example -- the human named Joan Rivers -- instead of something more general and appropriate (like the meme, "interwebs"); the same way it might be funny to cite Dennis Miller as an example of something white.

If Joan Rivers incidentally calls forth thoughts like "they must mean 'human' can't possibly describe her cause she's had so much cosmetic surgery", that's not the intention. If anyone feels the name should be changed to avoid that, I'm fine with that. Equazcion ^(talk) 11:03, 3 Dec 2011 (UTC)

It would be nice if you responded to the discussion rather than merely reverting again. WP:BRD Equazcion ^(talk) 21:08, 3 Dec 2011 (UTC)

I had not realized you started the discussion beyond the edit summary until I saw your latest edit summary. Nothing you've said addresses what I said in the last edit summary. Yes, I understand what you intend this to mean but nevertheless it parses without straining as a personal attack. You want people to hear what you mean but language doesn't work like that. It is easily misunderstood as saying that it is a stretch to consider Joan Rivers a human, and the well known plastic surgery issues with her makes the misunderstanding more easily to draw. It may be neither here nor there but I note that this replaces a prior version that if it wasn't a direct person attack on George Bush, was much easier to read as such. If you want it to take the same form but not have any implication, uses something generic. The examples of what can be used are legion, mountain / Mont blanc; pen / Bic; browser / Firefox; etc. Meanwhile, I am reverting again because BLP concerns trump BRD.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 04:27, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

I think Internet / Interweb is an extremely poor example in this case, since the argument is that using a general term to refer to a specific thing is confusing. Interweb is just a bastardization of Internet, while "wiki" and "Wikipedia" are two different things. I think browser / Firefox is probably a good unlikely-to-offend-anyone example, but don't quote me on that when someone comes on here complaining "why not Chrome!?". Korin43 (talk) 22:49, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Thankfully there is something called context...

...so the specific instances where this could possible be a problem are already very limited and boring. --Onorem♠Dil 23:19, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Say someone says this...

All information taken from the Wiki.

Notice that there is a "the" before Wiki, but the latter is capitalized. Is this okay?TheGoomba98 (talk) 23:12, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

It's as wrong as "that Tree is green". 31.50.70.172 (talk) 20:11, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

What makes wiki special?

What makes wiki different from 'PC' for 'PC derivative running on windows', 'cola' to mean specifically 'coca cola', 'news server' to mean 'Usenet news server', 'mailbox' to mean either 'e-mailbox' or 'analogue mailbox', and 'computer' meaning 'PC-based computer'? PinkShinyRose (talk) 00:22, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

…and using "meme" to mean an image macro? Or referring to the World Wide Web (or your browser) as "The Internet"? And therefore implying no other thing can be called by that name? Very little, these are equally ignorant and make one's vocabulary dumber. They are just not the subject of this essay. (Though "mailbox" and "news server" are rather poor examples here. "Mailbox" just changes meaning depending on context, as you noticed. I have never ever seen anyone use "news server" to mean anything other than a Usenet server, and these were probably the first to be called such. In contrast, wikis existed before Wikipedia.) Keφr 17:57, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Meaning depending on context. What a novel concept, and the reason that while I'm on Wiki talking about wiki, I'll refer to it as wiki, and people who understand what context is will know what I mean as they sit in the corner being smug about why I'm wrong to say wiki. --Onorem (talk) 18:00, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

But people often misunderstand, or may not have enough knowledge to recognise what the right "context" is supposed to be, and they cannot be blamed for it (exclusively). It is for the sake of them that we should not use "Wiki" to abbreviate "Wikipedia". Keφr 18:58, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Mutatis mutandis, please don't use 'WP.' While working on edits in Wikipedia and reading comments, for a long time I was in the dark what WP meant: Only after many encounters did context clear it up. I think that Sagan and I were not alone. 211.225.33.104 (talk) 00:17, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia abbreviations

Hi! Contrary to the last sub-comment, I find that abbreviations ARE a reality like it or not, and therefore, while I indeed find this article humorous as called, it unfortunately does not answer a lingering practical question of mine I could NOT find answers of on Wikipedia or otherwise: HOW should we abbreviate thr various WIKIMEDIA projects, namely:

• Wikipedia (WP)
• Wikibooks (??)
• Wikiversity (??)
• Wikinews (??)
• Wiktionary (??)
• Wikisource (??)
• Wikiquote (??)
• Wikivoyage (??)
• Wikimedia Commons (??)
• Wikidata (??)
• Wikispecies (??)
• MediaWiki (MW) ?

The closest I could find on this topic is that subpage which is not necessarily analoguous to what I'm asking: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Wikimedia_sister_projects#Linking_between_projects

Yes, that's not a joke but a REAL question. --207.236.124.99 (talk) 17:01, 6 March 2021 (UTC) Alainr345

Wiktionary is generally abbreviated "Wikt" or "WT". 2A00:23C5:FE18:2700:F805:97D1:5B86:680E (talk) 19:59, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Personally I'd have Wikibooks as WB, Wikiversity as WV/WVS, WV, WN, WT, WS/WSO, WQ, WVY(?), WM(?)/WC/CM, WD, WSP, and for meta WM could also work.

Also year late, sorry. 172.112.210.32 (talk) 04:14, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Historical tag?

Should this get a 'historical' template in addition to or instead of the 'humour' template? I've not heard anybody honestly conflate the two words in upwards of a decade. We probably have Wikia to thank for that, I guess. Arlo James Barnes 05:42, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Question

Alan asks Bob what year the computer was invented. Bob replies, "Go look on its wiki page."

Is this correct? 172.112.210.32 (talk) 02:40, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

No. Cranloa12n / talk / contribs / 13:18, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Thomas the Tank Engine

Thomas the Tank Engines are a type of locomotives that powers using heat and water to pressure out into steam out their funnels, coal as the fluid power source to burn up with fire to start, they are often depicted as the main imaged concept for trains in general culture. they are known to be sentient and speak enginsh through their round light gray human faces with black triangle eyebrows.

172.100.171.82 (talk) 00:16, 23 August 2023 (UTC)