31 Jul
2013
31 Jul
'13
9:51 a.m.
Hi Sergiu,
On Jul 31, 2013, at 1:02 AM, Sergiu Dumitriu <sergiu(a)xwiki.com> wrote:
I'm sorry but you weren't clear. The topic of your mail was :"How to call a
workspace?"…
I think you should have sent a mail entitled "The future of wikis and how XWiki can
grow more". This is a very interesting topic indeed which I'd like to discuss too
but I don't think it should affect our XWiki 5.2 discussion, it's something much
larger.
<side note>
We're in a hurry for 5.2 because it's already started, GuillaumeD is responsible
to implement this and is going on holiday in 3 days and will have little time when
he's back, so I was hoping we could have a quick common agreement for 5.2 to make
progress.
</side note>
On 07/30/2013 05:32 PM, Vincent Massol wrote:
Yes I've been looking at those trends for a long time now and I'm watching them
every few months too.
"Confluence" is cheating because it's an English word so you get a lot of
garbage with it… Try "atlassian confluence" and you'll see a different
picture…
I prefer this one though:
http://www.google.com/trends/explore?q=xwiki%2C+mediawiki%2C+confluence#q=w…
And yes I've also noticed that the "wiki" trend has been going down since
july 2011. I don't have an explanation but we need to be careful with google trends
and the way it works.
Another problem is that they're all going down on google trends… I'm not sure
which concepts are increasing. It would be interesting to find out.
Anyway I think you're diverging from the initial topic of integrating the ability to
create subwikis/workspace in the default distribution. I don't think our goal for
XWiki 5.2 is to question the core existence of the XWiki project and to rename everything
and obliterate the "wiki" name.
I also would like to rename "XWiki" to something that doesn't contain the
word "wiki" in it because I also think we've reached a stage where the
"wiki" name might hamper us because "XWiki" is a lot more than a
traditional wiki and being alone to push the concept of "application wiki" is
hard (too bad google dropped jotspot). However I don't agree that this change should
be done by being incoherent. We currently are a wiki at heart with code and concepts of a
wiki. For XWiki 5.2 I'm convinced we need to keep this consistency. And having
"page/document", "space" and "shelf" is not a good idea. In
the wiki world the concepts are "page", "space", "wiki",
"attachments", etc.
Hi Sergiu,
On Jul 30, 2013, at 6:47 PM, Sergiu Dumitriu <sergiu(a)xwiki.org> wrote:
Are you sure you want to go this way?
http://www.google.com/trends/explore?q=xwiki%2C+mediawiki%2C+confluence Vincent, stop thinking so technical! You're
describing the technical
implementation of the current "workspace" feature, not the user friendly
name that users can understand.
<joking>
ok let's stop the xwiki project then! Because it contains the word "wiki"
which our users don't understand…. I don't even understand how we get users since
obviously they can't understand what xwiki is about… ;) Let's call it
"stuff" which is a word that everyone understands surely…
</joking>
XWiki is almost unknown. XWiki doesn't get the volume of users that a
mature and popular project usually gets. We've been struggling to market
it as an application wiki, yet few users use it that way. How many high
quality third party applications do we have in our repository?
I've seen more questions about migrating from Mediawiki than from
Confluence, which is our direct competitor. And Confluence is only
getting more popular.
The peak of Mediawiki popularity was also the peak of interest in
plaintext wikis (Gartner's peak of inflated expectations). And
unfortunately the decrease in popularity in Mediawiki is also reflected
in the decrease in popularity in XWiki:
http://www.google.com/trends/explore?q=xwiki (and twiki, dokuwiki,
moinmoin, pmwiki, jspwiki).
Confluence seems to be the winner on the Gartner Hype Cycle.
We haven't even been able to overcome our precursor, TWiki, and I've
considered TWiki almost dead for several years:
http://www.google.com/trends/explore?q=xwiki%2C+twiki
So don't wonder how we even get users, because we almost don't.
That's why I'd like to set up my "active installs" extension to really
know and measure that. I don't trust google trends at face value.
And I didn't say that users don't understand
what "wiki" means, just
that they misunderstand what XWiki is and what a wiki is in XWiki,
because they already know what a wiki is in the traditional way. It's
like calling a teleportation device a TCar because it gets you from one
place to another, just like a car, but then users will expect all the
things they have in a car. There's a reason why different products get
different names, instead of just extending the base name: reusing the
old name with a prefix causes confusion.
So +1 for choosing something better than "XWiki" as the name of the
product, this one hasn't been lucky so far.
Did I even mention "renaming"? I explicitly said that this isn't about
changing our entity names, but about labeling for users. It's a
marketing strategy.
But yes, even "document" and "space" have been occasionally
misleading.
What exactly do you see? I see:
"A Web site developed collaboratively by a community of users, allowing
any user to add and edit content"
So if this is indeed the correct term, adding a new subwiki, is...
"creating a new website"? Do you even know what a "website" means
for
the average user? Or "content"?
Again, when did I ever said that we should rename them? I just said that
it would be more intuitive for users to label a virtual wiki as a workspace.
Ok if all you're asking is for the user to be able to customize its UI and rename
"page" to "A", "space" to "B" and "wiki"
to "C" then we can think about how to achieve that but the core distribution
that we deliver should contain the notion of page, space, wiki.
No matter
how much more accurate the term "wiki" is to what's happening
inside, it means less than nothing to our target users. Less, because
it's misleading instead of helpful.
So yes, on the inside we have __entities__ named documents, spaces and
wikis, and this isn't about changing those. It's about adding names that
end users can understand to the __concepts__ that those entities
represent.
<joking>
Yeah, let's rename "document" by "book page", "space"
by "book" and "wiki" by "shelf". I"m sure users will
understand better!
</joking> It is a
wiki, but it lets users collaborate. Our users do
their jobs in such a wiki, and for __our users__ that means much more
than what "wiki" means to them.
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=define%3Awiki
You just proved that the wiki word is exactly the right word… :) Remember
the XWiki (SAS) mottos: work better together, the best way to
organize information, free your knowledge... Users do their work
collaboratively, they don't just write pages in a wiki. They write in a
forum, write review, write press releases, vote, plan, review job
candidates, take meeting notes, draw UML diagrams, etc. This is why
"wiki" is WRONG for __end users__.
I think that this is not a technical decision, but a marketing/usability
one, so it would be better to see what someone from marketing thinks.
I definitely don't agree, sorry… We're building a collaborative solution based on
a wiki and as such I definitely don't agree to rename the base concepts of a wiki:
pages, spaces, wiki, etc. Remember that
we're talking here about the base platform. Then there are flavors and customizations
done by our users which can be anything specific for their project if they want to hide
the wiki concepts…
I think you're confusing applications based on xwiki concepts with core concepts. A
subwiki is a core concept in the same manner as a document or a space. What we're
doing now is making the notion of subwiki part of the core concepts as it should have been
a long time ago (this is why btw it's also in the new model). Again, on top of these
core concepts you could create apps for specific uses cases. You could have a workspace
app if you want although with the core concepts it's not required ATM since it
doesn't add any additional feature...
Rerepeating myself, this isn't about the workspace feature. This isn't
about the workspace feature. This is about the XWiki vision, and the
XWiki marketing strategy. Is XWiki just a wiki? Or is it much more than
that, with collaborative applications as the focus instead of just plain
text. What is XWiki trying to be? How do we present it to
our potential users?
As a wiki? Or as a platform empowering collaboration? An intranet
environment, where employees can do their work better.
Compared to first generation wikis, XWiki is like an atomic bomb next to
a hand grenade. Let's not market XWiki as a Bigger Grenade.
And please, read more carefully what I'm actually saying.
I'm trying hard, believe me...
Thanks
-Vincent
Thanks
-Vincent
PS: BTW you haven't proposed a good name so far IMO…. At least not one that is better
for all use cases. Some might be better for a specific usage of xwiki but not generally
speaking.
> On 07/30/2013 12:15 PM, Vincent Massol wrote:
>>
>> On Jul 30, 2013, at 5:53 PM, Eduard Moraru <enygma2002(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Just my point of view on this point, since I keep seeing similar topics
>>> popping up once in a while...
>>>
>>> For me, the "wiki" is the entire environment (main wiki + all its
>>> subwikis), as a whole, by definition. Since they are all connected, it is
>>> wrong to say that we are creating new wikis (subwikis) when, in fact, we
>>> are just creating new "spaces"/"workspaces" (spaces where
the user
>>> does/groups/catalogues his work). Also, this view is enforced by our new
>>> direction towards virtual by default and of making subwikis part of
XWiki's
>>> data model (including the new model).
>>
>> In the future you'll be able to either:
>> - create wikis, they are real wikis.
>> - create nested spaces
>>
>> So you'll be able to choose the way you want to organize yourself by either
creating a (sub)wiki or a (nested)space.
>>
>> The notion of "workspace" is not needed in either case:
>> - for (sub)wikis, it matches with the notion of a wiki and flavors
>> - for (nested)space, it matches with the notion of a space + space template
(which I guess could also be implemented as a flavor in the future)
>>
>>> Since we are currently lacking the hierarchy feature of the the new model,
>>> and we are faking it technically (and maybe this is where the confusion
>>> comes from) by using new wikis(subwikis) in new databases, the term
>>> "workspace" would, IMO, remain the best candidate.
>>
>> I don't agree. The "workspace" feature was done ad-hoc outside of
the platform and as a consequence was thought as an add-on. Now, what we are doing and
preparing for the future is to have the notion of subwiki at the core of XWiki. And this
concept of workspace is no longer needed as something adhoc. It can be integrated in the
platform.
>>
>> What is a workspace:
>> * it's a set of pages/applications
>> * using existing users
>>
>> Those 2 items can be done without the need for any new name/concept. A set of
pages/applications is what we call a flavor. And the notion of users already exists (what
we need to work on, is to have a config feature so that a subwiki can have or not have
local users).
>>
>>> If we consider the fact
>>> that we want to make workspaces the default (as proven in practice), we
>>> find that the "corner" cases are actually the term "wiki"
(actually
>>> "subwiki"), which occur only in farm deployments where, indeed, a
subwiki
>>> is a fully fledged and generally isolated "wiki" from the point of
view of
>>> the owner and its users.
>>>
>>> Also, in an enterprise environment, try explaining each time to the
>>> Accounting, Marketing, etc. departments that:
>>> - a "wiki" is "a set of pages that can be edited/modified by
users with
>>> links between pages, using some syntax, etc."...
>>> - a "workspace" is "a/the space where you (do *your*)
work/collaborate"
>>
>> I don't understand. Why have the 2 concepts? The idea of option B is to have
only 1 concept: that of (sub)wikis.
>>
>>> +1 for "workspace" as first-class term being promoted to users
>>> +1 for "wiki" as technical term being mentioned in documentation to
admins
>>> (specifically for farm deployments)
>>>
>>> Also, being an enterprise wiki, I`m not sure we want to be labelled as the
>>> company's "wiki" instead of the company's
"collaboration tool" (or "tool
>>> used to get our work done").
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Eduard
>>>
>>> P.S.: As a technical/background note, just not to be misunderstood, indeed,
>>> a workspace is implemented as just a wiki right now with additional
>>> restrictions to satisfy its usecase. However, this is only due to our
>>> platform's limitations. Normally, a workspace should just be a space
where
>>> a user can install apps, create other sub-spaces, and collaborate with
>>> others. The initial proposal (for the "Wiki 3.0" XWiki SAS
research
>>> project) was to actually use spaces to implement workspaces, but since we
>>> could not install apps (among other things), we chose to use subwikis
>>> instead.
>>
>> We still need the ability to "Add a new Wiki" in 5.2 so this
doesn't change anything.
>>
>> And if in the future we support nested spaces then users will also be able to use
them + space templates with flavors.
>>
>> So for me that makes it even more important to not introduce the notion of
"workspaces" in 5.2 and to only have the notion of adding a (sub)wiki :)
>>
>> Thanks
>> -Vincent
>>
>>> On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 5:29 PM, Vincent Massol <vincent(a)massol.net>
wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Jul 30, 2013, at 4:15 PM, Sergiu Dumitriu <sergiu(a)xwiki.com>
wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 07/30/2013 08:28 AM, Vincent Massol wrote:
>>>>>> Definitely +1 for B. I really think we need to drop the concept
of
>>>> workspaces and come back to the concept of wiki/subwiki. It's much
simpler
>>>> for the user. What we call "workspace" can be seen as a
configuration for a
>>>> wiki, i.e. the usage of global users only.
>>>>>
>>>>> I disagree. For us XWiki veterans it's obvious that an XWiki wiki
is an
>>>>> all-powerful collection of applications and pages that can do
anything
>>>>> we want it to. But for users, a wiki is Wikipedia, where you can
find
>>>>> documentation written by amateurs that's hasn't been
proof-read by a
>>>>> real professional. It takes months or years of using a wiki to shift
>>>>> from the external viewer bad opinion to the internal collaborator
good
>>>>> opinion of the term "wiki".
>>>>>
>>>>> So "wiki" is a bad name for users. I think
"workspace" is a much better
>>>>> name than "wiki", although it's far from perfect. First
of all because
>>>>> it creates confusion between a "space" and a
"workspace (wiki)".
>>>>>
>>>>> So, what better word describes a "collaboration space" than
"workspace"?
>>>>>
>>>>> Some random ideas, most of them bad:
>>>>> - node
>>>>> - workgroup
>>>>> - community
>>>>> - rename space to directory and we can use space or workspace for
the
>>>>> current "wiki"
>>>>> - virtual server
>>>>> - environment
>>>>> - sandbox
>>>>> - appspace
>>>>> - office
>>>>> - location
>>>>> - rack
>>>>> - stack
>>>>> - instance
>>>>> - room
>>>>> - workroom
>>>>> - desk
>>>>
>>>> I'm not sure this is needed. XWiki is all about the notion of wiki…
even
>>>> in its name. The generic name "wiki" seems a much better name
to me than
>>>> anything else:
>>>> * it's a set of pages that can be edited/modified by users with
links
>>>> between pages, using some syntax, etc.
>>>>
>>>> I don't think we need to change that. Any other name would be awkward
IMO.
>>>>
>>>>> Let's not forget that some of the instances are customized so
much that
>>>>> users don't even know they're using a wiki, so just seeing
the word
>>>>> "wiki" might cause confusion: "Wiki? What wiki?
I'm using our company's
>>>>> internal Foobars application!". So it would be a good idea to
make this
>>>>> term configurable.
>>>>
>>>> If the instance is customized so much that it doesn't look like a
wiki,
>>>> then whoever did this customization can easily also customize the
>>>> translation resources to pick whatever suit their needs! ;)
>>>>
>>>> For example, if the wiki is used as a projects wiki and they want to
have
>>>> one project = one wiki, they could rename "Wiki" to
"Projects".
>>>>
>>>> We'll never be able to use a specialized name by default so we might
as
>>>> well stick with "wiki" which is the best name for what it is… a
wiki ;-)
>>>>
>>>> Thanks
>>>> -Vincent