One of the downsides to wikis (or parts of wikis) is, what if you wanted to read them? Is there a good order? Usually*, no. … *I’m not aware of any counter-examples.
Which anyone can create an account on, edit, and make new posts/articles? The fact that it looks like a book, rather than a ghastly mess led me to believe otherwise.
Also, it’s a tree, and it’s obviously self-contained. It...flows. It has a homepage with an introduction and a table of contents which contains tables of contents which contain posts. You read it by reading, scrolling down, clicking (to go down a level), and when you’ve read that level you go back up and continue reading. (On the bottom level, posts/pages, you don’t go any deeper.)
It’s linear because I created views on the pages which present them in a linear order—which is my point. The pages are also hyperlinked together in a chaotic manner, as any other wiki is; and of course you can search it, which ditto.
You read it by reading, scrolling down, clicking (to go down a level), and when you’ve read that level you go back up and continue reading.
(You can also use the next-page / previous-page navigation buttons, which is even more linear.)
Which anyone can create an account on, edit, and make new posts/articles? The fact that it looks like a book, rather than a ghastly mess led me to believe otherwise.
The Sequence posts themselves are not publicly editable, for obvious reasons. The Talk pages (see ‘Talk’ link in top left corner) are publicly editable—with no account creation necessary. You can’t create new pages—but that’s only because I’ve got the permissions set that way. A change of configuration—a moment’s work—and that is enabled, too.
It’s linear because I created views on the pages which present them in a linear order—which is my point.
The Sequence posts themselves are not publicly editable, for obvious reasons.
Then I don’t see a point of disagreement.
In regards to the OP’s point, I’d say that not only are “books” a (linear)/simple structure, but physical books may act to coerce such a structure. It’s not that I have something against other sorts of structures, just ones lacking clear paths. Are there books which suggest a reading order other than first page to last page? Yes, and and they tell you what it is.
The pages are also hyperlinked together in a chaotic manner, as any other wiki is; and of course you can search it, which ditto.
The level on which is this occurs is important. A hierarchy requires (clearly distinguished) levels above posts/articles to only reference lower levels (and call them as such).*
and of course you can search it, which ditto.
The linear/hierarchical structure of ReadTheSequences.com also allows for another kind of searching. If I read it in order, but forget where I am, I can binary search and see if I remember reading something. If I have (including the end), then I can eliminate it from my search along with everything before it. If I haven’t, I can eliminate it from my search along with everything after it.
*This isn’t undermined if these higher level pages note the page which contains them (while being explicit at a minimum that it’s “a page which links here”) I’d say something wikis miss is not having posts/articles contain a list of pages which link to them. (If not in the sense of not having the tech, then in not making it obvious: UI.)
I’d say something wikis miss is not having posts/articles contain a list of pages which link to them. (If not in the sense of not having the tech, then in not making it obvious: UI.)
FYI, this is an artifact of the specific wiki software that you’re likely familiar with (namely, MediaWiki, on which Wikipedia is built). Other, better wiki platforms have easily accessible lists of backlinks (see “Backlinks” at the top right).
Oh, and by the way—
ReadTheSequences.com is, in fact, a wiki.
Which anyone can create an account on, edit, and make new posts/articles? The fact that it looks like a book, rather than a ghastly mess led me to believe otherwise.
Also, it’s a tree, and it’s obviously self-contained. It...flows. It has a homepage with an introduction and a table of contents which contains tables of contents which contain posts. You read it by reading, scrolling down, clicking (to go down a level), and when you’ve read that level you go back up and continue reading. (On the bottom level, posts/pages, you don’t go any deeper.)
It’s linear. There’s a clear path through it.
It’s linear because I created views on the pages which present them in a linear order—which is my point. The pages are also hyperlinked together in a chaotic manner, as any other wiki is; and of course you can search it, which ditto.
(You can also use the next-page / previous-page navigation buttons, which is even more linear.)
The Sequence posts themselves are not publicly editable, for obvious reasons. The Talk pages (see ‘Talk’ link in top left corner) are publicly editable—with no account creation necessary. You can’t create new pages—but that’s only because I’ve got the permissions set that way. A change of configuration—a moment’s work—and that is enabled, too.
Then I don’t see a point of disagreement.
In regards to the OP’s point, I’d say that not only are “books” a (linear)/simple structure, but physical books may act to coerce such a structure. It’s not that I have something against other sorts of structures, just ones lacking clear paths. Are there books which suggest a reading order other than first page to last page? Yes, and and they tell you what it is.
The level on which is this occurs is important. A hierarchy requires (clearly distinguished) levels above posts/articles to only reference lower levels (and call them as such).*
The linear/hierarchical structure of ReadTheSequences.com also allows for another kind of searching. If I read it in order, but forget where I am, I can binary search and see if I remember reading something. If I have (including the end), then I can eliminate it from my search along with everything before it. If I haven’t, I can eliminate it from my search along with everything after it.
*This isn’t undermined if these higher level pages note the page which contains them (while being explicit at a minimum that it’s “a page which links here”) I’d say something wikis miss is not having posts/articles contain a list of pages which link to them. (If not in the sense of not having the tech, then in not making it obvious: UI.)
FYI, this is an artifact of the specific wiki software that you’re likely familiar with (namely, MediaWiki, on which Wikipedia is built). Other, better wiki platforms have easily accessible lists of backlinks (see “Backlinks” at the top right).