Conveying: Moans about poor documentation

1,353 views
Skip to first unread message

Josiah

unread,
Nov 30, 2016, 11:36:44 AM11/30/16
to TiddlyWiki
Ciao tutti

In the last two weeks I've had extensive private correspondence with three folk over on Twitter who want to know where to find the "real documentation" for TiddlyWiki. After pointing to what documentation there is I suggested they ask in the group on specific things they want to do.

If I hadn't engaged in that discussion with them I would never have know there are potential users who are likely passing on from not being able to grasp enough quickly enough to be able to utilise TW well.

I think its a problem (for them at least) as is.

Just saying ...
Josiah

Mark S.

unread,
Nov 30, 2016, 12:56:14 PM11/30/16
to TiddlyWiki
What were they trying to do?

The documentation for basic functionality seems to be right there. But it does require people understand a bit about downloading, file structure (to find the downloaded file), and browser plugins. Web-based solutions don't require that knowledge, but then they can't operate off-line either.

The documentation for more advanced topics, on the other hand, is scattered throughout TiddlyWiki.com and not nearly as accessible.

Mark

Riz

unread,
Nov 30, 2016, 12:59:07 PM11/30/16
to TiddlyWiki
 +1 for the question.


Josiah

unread,
Nov 30, 2016, 1:24:44 PM11/30/16
to TiddlyWiki
Ciao Mark

The queries fell between two stools. On the one hand they have looked at the basic docs, on the other finding the Google Group a bit too much. Given that majority of people looking on Twitter for #TiddlyWiki are mostly techies, these 3 were no exception. I think that is interesting in itself. To give an example of a question I could not answer without referring to here: "How do you append to a list a title with spaces using a text reference?"

Obviously their question needs to be opened up more but its pretty good IMO to construct that question when you have no documentation at that level to refer to.

Best wishes
Josiah

Mark S.

unread,
Nov 30, 2016, 1:44:07 PM11/30/16
to TiddlyWiki
That's not a basic question -- somebody that's been working with lists and filters for awhile would have to cook up a response. It's not something someone would even consider asking in say, MediaWiki or Evernote.

It's like buying a book on first aid and complaining that there's no chapter on removing kidneys.

Mark

Josiah

unread,
Nov 30, 2016, 2:11:37 PM11/30/16
to TiddlyWiki
Ciao Mark

You are right, its NOT a basic question. That is the point. But it is a question. A question that is falling between two stools from lack of documentation IMO.

Its NOT like complaining the first aid book lacks kidney removals. Its much more like it lacked advice on basic suturing.

IMO these cases are illuminative, not to be dismissed so quickly.

Best wishes
Josiah

PMario

unread,
Nov 30, 2016, 5:52:16 PM11/30/16
to TiddlyWiki
On Wednesday, November 30, 2016 at 7:24:44 PM UTC+1, Josiah wrote:

.. To give an example of a question I could not answer without referring to here: "How do you append to a list a title with spaces using a text reference?"

If they did as for text reference. IMO a search would have told them: http://tiddlywiki.com/#TextReference

-m

Riz

unread,
Dec 1, 2016, 2:28:57 AM12/1/16
to TiddlyWiki


Ok, so this is a post I have been planning to make for long. Wear your seat-belts.

Obligatory warning: The following comments are made out of a sincere desire to see this platform getting better and appealing to more people. Remember that I have no personal gains from writing this.

The thread is missing the point of Josiah's post. The need for a co-ordinated effort to create community documentation.


| It's like buying a book on first aid and complaining that there's no chapter on removing kidneys.

TW5's competition is not evernote. People look for Tiddlywiki when they already left behind evernote and are looking for alternatives. So from the scores of alternatives available, why would one choose TW5?

TW5 as a first aid solution is not the main part of its charm. We have to admit its limitations compared to the competing solutions. Saving for one. Telling people you can use this as a single page html anywhere is wonderful, as long as you have firefox and a plugin is not equally so. The impending death of Tiddlychrome will be effectively ruling out SPA use in Chrome unless you are game to put up with a less pleasing user experience.

Also to be mentioned is the inability to use javascript. I understand that there are hurdles wrt security (not really, but for the sake of this post, let us pretend that I understand.). Nevertheless this is a disadvantage a lot of other wikis do not have. [Meanwhile if I use a TW just in my computer in the HTML format without having to worry about security, can I enable the js scripts? There are a lot of awesome js scripts out there and waiting for someone to adapt those to TW undermines the whole standing-on-the-shoulders-of-giants approach. Enablejs plugin is not working,:-( ]

 If people wanted a simple note taking wiki, they could use zim or Raneto or even wordpress, and for extensive purposes there are bigger projects like foswiki or Xwiki or Twiki.

 As someone who spend quite some time testing several solutions listed in wikimatrix.com, I can say this with a level of confidence that the advantage of TW5 is its flexibility. It gives you a scalpel that can cut out a make a simple slash or remove the kidney (enough with the medical analogies. That would be the last one.)

 However, while TW5 shows you the sky, it currently fails you give you enough wings (told you, no more medical analogies). The other day I was looking for a solution to export a list to a text file. The text file would show up with the content <$list filter="[tag[HelloThere]]"/> - which is obviously not what I wanted. I am not ego-centric enough to believe that I am the first one to have this question. Someone might have, and he would have found a solution. It might be even in this group, I just have to spend 20-25 mins trying to sift through the chaff and get to the solution. Of course you can ask the group, you people will graciously put in time and effort to answer. Nevertheless, having to ask such a possibly simple question, over and over again is a dehumanizing experience. Not a whole lot will subscribe to that.

 This is the point where I have this question: Why is Tiddlyverse so averse to the idea of setting up an organized community documentation?

 Jeremy Ruston is a single human being who has as much time as any of us. Besides being the main developer of TW5 which he does not use to earn his bread, expecting him to take point on documentation and creating tutorials is seriously unfair.
 It has been quite some time since Erwan outlined a commendable model for TW5 documentation and Mat raised the issue in an earnest manner. Has there been much progress since then? The Wikidocs group is dead and dry as, well, whatever is dead and dry.

Now here is a couple of proposals.
1. Create a mediawiki to document TW5. (gasp, audible murmurs and chattering of pitchforks). TW5 is not supporting collaborative editing and user approval as of now. It was not intended for such an aim if I understand it correctly. That being so, there is no harm or shame in using other services. The approved users can create documentation which will remove the burden from a single person. There are services that will host a mediawiki for free.
2. Create something of the nature of Tiddlydrive where users can simply submit a plain text write-up which will be incorporated to the wiki after being reviewed by a subgroup of moderators. This actually is more demanding than the first option, but it has the advantage that people does not have to learn to clone-commit-push-and-pull.

Documentation is tough to come by. Demanding that a user should learn the ways of github which is not the most user-friendly solutions, is akin to actively discouraging the user submissions except from a niche. There are scores of cases, examples, tweaks and customisations that has no place in the official website. Nor is its place scattered in a 100 different TWs or 1000 different posts.

sincerely
Someone who took 2 months to realize that you can actually change the color of site title.

PS: For those who put up with the long read, here is a JSON. It will set your sidebar search field to only activate the search upon pressing enter key. Will help if you have a large wiki and do not want to reload the search with every keystroke.
Enter the Search.json

David Gifford

unread,
Dec 1, 2016, 9:56:02 AM12/1/16
to tiddl...@googlegroups.com
I want to affirm Josiah and Riz's frustration, from someone who has done introductory documentation for TW classic (TiddlyWiki for the rest of us) and the current TiddlyWiki (which you can still find on tiddlywiki.com, and which I added via Github, and Github was a miserable experience for me. I still don't get it).

Six things to try to explain (and defend, but not excuse) the current lack of documentation:

One problem is really a blessing: there is seemingly a limitless amount of things you can do with TiddlyWiki, and limitless ways to customize it. So to imagine a documentation site that could cover all those possibilities seems too great. The possibilities are so many that is even hard to know how best to structure or organize a documentation site for TW, which I know from experience. For example, Jeremy and I had very differing opinions at one point because Jeremy prefers noun and definition-based categories for documentation (this is what a macro is, and this is the machinery behind it), whereas I prefer verb and illustration-based categories (this is what a user wants to do, how can she do it?). As you can see, that distinction alone would result in two very different ways of organizing the documentation, like a car mechanic's manual vs a driver's manual.

Another problem is that TiddlyWiki is a moving target. Updates have slowed down, but for a while the new versions were coming out every 2-4 weeks, and doing documentation would require extensive monitoring and rewrites. Not much of an incentive to do documentation.

Another problem is that many of the users are not writers and find it hard to understand and communicate with less technically savvy end users like me. Much of the documentation lacks use case examples, and after many of the answers I have received here, I have had to ask them to explain it another way because I didn't have a clue what they were saying. This is not a criticism of the community, more of a defense of them - writing tutorials or explanations would not be their gift or passion, so it is too much to expect from them. Whereas they show time and time again that they will generously help people when given questions that are stated specifically and clearly enough. So the Google Groups format works.

Another issue is GitHub. Using what to me is a system with a very complicated learning curve to document another complex system. Too much work.

Another issue is that development of TiddlyWiki goes in random spurts based on the limited attention span of key players. Things that get mentioned on Hangouts, in conversation, or in the GitHub issues list, at first are given a lot of attention, but if something else that is interesting comes along, the first item gets left hanging and even forgotten because the attention is now on the second item. I remember when list fields were the big thing, and I was confidently told there would be a UI for rearranging list items with drag and drop, etc. Never happened. There was also discussion on a hangout of doing a flexible table format where each cell is on a different line and could be formatted. When I asked about it some time later, I was told, "Why would anyone need that? Just use an html table" as if I was talking about something out of the blue. Could multiply examples of what almost sounded like promises of what would be in TW but that never materialized. So I tend to now take things with a grain of salt.

Another issue is that the minute things stabilize, a web browser decides to change things around completely. Now I am hearing that Tiddlyfox will not work in an upcoming version of Firefox. Not only does this mean I have no idea how I will use TW after that happens, but it requires fixes that then require changes in the documentation.

On another fairly separate note, one thing that bugs me, not so much about documentation as about learning TW, is that there are too many things that are similar to each other that you really have to learn them well or create cheatsheets to keep it straight. For example, widgets and macros. In some cases they do the same thing but the syntax is different: <<list-links filter:"[tagging[bob]]">> and <$list filter="[tagging[bob]]"/> What I don't understand is why the one has : after the word filter and the other has =. A little standardization there would have helped a lot. And the distinction between [tags[ [tag[ tagging[ is not clear, and sometimes the  syntax is the opposite of what the function is. ([tagged[ would have been preferable to [tagging[, I think) I turn to Tobias Beer's list filter reference page often, and even then I struggle to combine lists within lists or add CSS to one part of a list. And @@. @@ isn't always as flexible as <span class=""/> so they are not synonymous ways of wrapping with CSS. (eg you can't put @@.@@ inside of another @@. @@ as you can with spans). And for indenting there is : and > and I think two other ways. Great that we have so many options and so much flexibility! But it makes it difficult to conceive of documentation when there are ten ways of doing each thing. And more to my point, it is really hard to learn all this stuff when it all looks so similar but really is not.

Anyway, this is not a rant. Just some comments on documentation and learning to take into consideration. Hopefully someone will find them helpful. Dave

Mark S.

unread,
Dec 1, 2016, 10:45:49 AM12/1/16
to TiddlyWiki
I think a MediaWiki or similar solution would be a great thing. MediaWiki has a listing of MW sites available, including at least one that says its free and add-free (but who knows what the details are?). Other sites are fairly inexpensive if data can be kept under 10G.

The question is, is all the stuff currently in TiddlyWiki now technically copyrighted, or can it be ported to another working environment?

The current system of documentation discourages participation. I've written documentation and tutorials for other products, and wouldn't mind doing so for TW, but not tethered the way the current system is.

Mark

Mark S.

unread,
Dec 1, 2016, 11:09:15 AM12/1/16
to TiddlyWiki
Hi Dave,

Responses to various points --

There probably need to be 3 document paths: User, Advanced User, Developer.

Each bit of documentation could include the version it was written for. Then the reader could decide if what they're reading is applicable.

Adding better use-cases would be much more tempting with a MediaWiki (or some other Wiki/Blogging tool).

Github is a pain, but not as much as waiting 6 to 12 weeks to see your stuff submitted.

A MediaWiki type solution would allow people to get stuff out there while attention spans are still focused. Then no one could deny they said (promised?) it.

When TiddlyFox stops working, you should be able to save with the fall-back mechanism, which operates as a series of downloads. For any one session it feels just like it does now. But when you start a new session, you need to copy over the last TW you saved to your starting folder/site. I can imagine a script of some type helping to automate the process.

Probably coming up with a good workflow will be important for beginners when the changes occur. The thing to understand is that, since the very beginning, TW has been doing something that's considered a no-no in the security world: Saving copies of itself to the hard drive. In the past it used various loop-holes, developer's backdoors, java code and extensions. Over time the browser developers have become more serious about security and having been closing the loop-holes.

I doubt the confusing code elements are going to change, because too much of the system has been built on them. But having documentation that highlights these ambiguities would allow users to more readily thread their way through DIY solutions.

Pax,
Mark

Jeremy Ruston

unread,
Dec 1, 2016, 11:11:46 AM12/1/16
to tiddl...@googlegroups.com
Just jumping in on the TiddlyFox issue, there will be an update to TiddlyFox that works with the new architecture. It’s an update I prepared last year but pulled at the last minute because it doesn’t work on Firefox for Android; those users will be able to stick with the current version.

Best wishes

Jeremy.


--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TiddlyWiki" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to tiddlywiki+...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to tiddl...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/tiddlywiki.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tiddlywiki/50be35f7-0e6c-447c-b5e0-8751f0500c84%40googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Riz

unread,
Dec 1, 2016, 12:03:28 PM12/1/16
to TiddlyWiki


On Thursday, 1 December 2016 21:39:15 UTC+5:30, Mark S. wrote:
Hi Dave,

Responses to various points --

There probably need to be 3 document paths: User, Advanced User, Developer.

Each bit of documentation could include the version it was written for. Then the reader could decide if what they're reading is applicable.

Adding better use-cases would be much more tempting with a MediaWiki (or some other Wiki/Blogging tool).

 
So what are we waiting for? Jeremy's green signal?
Miraheze sounds like a it is not having much strings attached to it. Free, no ads and I did not read about a space limitation. We can always have backups. People back up entire wikipedia at times.
We would need a board of moderators just to review the submissions. In addition to Mark, I nominate Mat, being the mod of WikiDocs, if he is willing.
A style guide should be specified for the submissions. Within the outline Mark just said -User, Advanced User and Developer, there should be both noun based (what is this and what is its syntax) and verb based submissions (how to achieve "this" using "that"), interlinking to each other.

Last but not least, being someone who has very little trust in sustained enthusiasm of human kind for anything that will not immediately profit them or entertain them, I suggest that people who ask for help in the group,  if they found a satisfactory solution, should be asked to document it and submit. A little give back to the community and it will ensure steady flow of submissions.
 

Arlen Beiler

unread,
Dec 1, 2016, 1:01:56 PM12/1/16
to TiddlyWiki
I want to put my voice in here. The capabilities of the NodeJS
--server are totally underestimated. While you guys worry about single
tiddlywikis and huge tiddlywikis and all kinds of browser plugin
problems, I've been typing http://localhost:3000/ into my browser and
it works no matter what. Most of you don't store your files on Dropbox
or anywhere else that syncs and so you would have no problem carting
around a folder. Furthermore, many of those files can be combined into
one file. Literally one file for each file in the system tab of
TiddlyWiki, plus a few extra.

The reason no one knows about this is that it is hardly documented.
And yet, many of the scenarios that people ask for could be solved
beautifully using the server version. Inherited wikis, different
plugins on different wikis, etc. I'm not there yet, but it is possible
to host an unlimited number of wikis on the server. Until that
happens, however, it is not hard to use express to load ten
tiddlywikis on ten different folders (http://myexample.com/wiki1,
/wiki2, etc). And those tiddlywikis can inherit from each other.

That being said, I currently use single file TiddlyWikis that I have
stored on dropbox, and then modify them using
http://tiny.cc/tw5inthesky which uploads the file using the Dropbox
API.

My 2 cents,
-Arlen
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "TiddlyWiki" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to tiddlywiki+...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to tiddl...@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/tiddlywiki.
> To view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tiddlywiki/1cbe3a6b-246b-43d7-a6a9-f44aa2a38899%40googlegroups.com.

David Gifford

unread,
Dec 1, 2016, 4:38:13 PM12/1/16
to tiddl...@googlegroups.com
Hi Mark

Thanks for your comments. I agree Mediawiki would be a good option, and like the idea of dividing into the three audiences you mentioned (I did something somewhat similar for TW for the rest of us), though I think some items like list filters and customization should be for both end users and non-developer power users.

Dave

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "TiddlyWiki" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/tiddlywiki/R5Ml_P8IO5g/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to tiddlywiki+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to tiddl...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/tiddlywiki.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.



--
David Gifford
Christian Reformed World Missions, Mexico City

Eneko Gotzon

unread,
Dec 1, 2016, 11:27:54 PM12/1/16
to tiddl...@googlegroups.com

On Thu, Dec 1, 2016 at 10:38 PM, David Gifford <dgif...@crcna.org> wrote:
dividing into the three audiences…

​+1.

For me, humble user, it is hard to understand what this skilled​ (wonderful) group communicates about.

--
Eneko Gotzon Ares
eneko...@gmail.com

Riz

unread,
Dec 2, 2016, 10:55:40 AM12/2/16
to TiddlyWiki

Josiah

unread,
Dec 2, 2016, 11:00:18 AM12/2/16
to TiddlyWiki
David

That is a really excellent, detailed, and IMO, very accurate, balanced, description of the situation.

You penultimate paragraph is absolutely spot on IMO. Very often, as a naive user, I follow the docs only to find out I missed something that is some kinda semi-documented something--but where the range of its application is very context dependent and where there seem to be no exact rules. Life is too short to test the 62 variants to find out what the rule actually is!

Best wishes
Josiah

Josiah

unread,
Dec 2, 2016, 11:18:10 AM12/2/16
to TiddlyWiki
Ciao Riz

Right. The devil is in the details. Cases of user experience are very important.

Josiah

Josiah

unread,
Dec 2, 2016, 1:33:55 PM12/2/16
to TiddlyWiki
Ciao Mark S

You make great points.

IMO USE CASES are seriously currently UNDERDONE compared to other software.

I guess in back of my mind are questions about USAGE.

I think a VERY good example is how to post to social networks. Something I consider basic. In theory everything is there in TW that allows posting via the URI mechanisms. Actually doing it with properly URI formatted URLS is another story. I tried. I failed. I'm lacking the documentation I'd need.

Best wishes
Josiah

Philippe Le Toquin

unread,
Dec 2, 2016, 5:25:09 PM12/2/16
to tiddl...@googlegroups.com
I think the idea of a separate wiki that would collect all kind of typical user case would be a great idea. I asked the question that Riz mentioned on reddit and the answer I got (from you Riz?) was spot on.

I don't consider myself an expert in programming but I can still normally get my way around writing applications when I need to. With TW I often find myself stuck with no way of knowing how to proceed.
At the moment I do ask on this group and must say that the help is just wonderful but as it has been pointed it must be tiring after a while to always answer the same question again and again.

As TW5 becomes more and more popular (because it will!) you will get more and more of these "simple" questions. The forum is great but it can be difficult to find the answers to your problem.

All that to say that a wiki would be a good way of gathering these use case.

Philippe

Mat

unread,
Dec 2, 2016, 6:39:06 PM12/2/16
to tiddl...@googlegroups.com
Documentation - I will explain the only realistic solution below but let me start by saying what does NOT work (...if you're impatient you can jump down to the headline "The solution").

There are two main routes that might seem reasonable but are really cul-de-saqs:

"The lonesome cowboy" whom well-intentioned attempts to write, create or assemble comprehensive "how to use TW", "plugin collections" or one-stop-shops to cover it all. This works for limited matters, such as an intro for beginners or docs for some particular tw-application or "my own plugins", but not for TW at large because it is too big and changes continually. Heartfelt attempts have been made, in the TW community for a decade, and they have all been lovely for a short while and soon thereafter withered and failed.

"(Overly) manual community efforts"; The main attempt is/was probably tiddlywiki.org. There you have an actual wiki that anyone can edit. I think it was either Daniel or Simon Baird who started it many years ago and Tobias Beer gave it a substantial face-lift a few years ago. Really wonderful attempts - but, still, it never took off. This is a strong indication why something like a Mediawiki is NOT a good enough idea. The exact reason for why it doesn't work is another matter.

tiddlywiki.com is a bit of a combo of the above; one lonesome cowboy taking responsibility and with occasional help from fellow community members. The result is by far the best we've got and IMO very impressive - but still, as evidenced by this thread, it is not enough.

So... what CAN work?

Take a look at Erwans Community Search. This is not intended for aggregating documentation but for listing available plugins and finding tiddlers with some specific characteristic - and only from TW's where their authors have given approval for listing. The Community Aggregator says (scroll down on default tid) it was updated "2nd December 2016 at 4:48 (15 hours ago)." ...which I guess would mean that non of the TW's it's fetching from has been updated since August (tab Recent). This tool has assembled 10.000+ tiddlers and keeps on making sure they're updated - and here comes my main point in bringing this up in our discussion: It would be impossible to manually do the job that Erwans tool is doing. It demands tools/infrastructure to assemble the collective efforts.

If we want documentation that is comprehensive and up to date, this is impossible by such very manual means. Even Wikipedia, with it's many contributors is not without errors and stumps. And while docs for TW is a much smaller project, it still relies on those knowledgeable enough to write the docs (technically and linguistically) so this means we're down to... well, not many people. 

The solution... IMO ;-)

...is what we've already taken the first steps with, namely: TWederation / Federation / Linked TW's, whatever you want to call it. This could be an infrastructure for tools where you "aggregate" documentation from other TW's, on topics that concern you, and very easily add your own public notes to - even just comments, ratings or other meta data. This can then, in turn, be fetched by others. And you could have the fetched documentation automatically filtered such as by prioritizing certain authors, or later/more updated posts, or even if the post was authored in a TW with the same version number as yours. Even super small contributions like tagging a post, for your own benefit, will be of value for others and there could be a global directory of tags (topics).

Actually, on an individual level it is not even necessary with a comprehensive documentation. The only important topics are the ones you care about. So you only fetch those, (perhaps by filtering on tags). And, because this particular documentation will more likely be shared with like-minded individuals, there should be more specialization of particular areas of knowledge, which I believe is a more encouraging context to share notes/docs in.

BTW, we can probably even design it so that you can add to the documentation by asking questions in it!

I could go on and on about TWederation because I really think it is the most realistic way that we can solve this ongoing difficulty with documentation (...and much more). I hope to get back working on it soon but the basic bricks are already in place and anyone is welcome to join in. Development of it is not easy, yet, because this is uncharted territory.

<:-)


Jed Carty

unread,
Dec 3, 2016, 5:27:36 AM12/3/16
to TiddlyWiki
I agree with Mat that a shared distributed documentation effort is the only real way for a community like this to create the sort of documentation we want. Although I may be more than a little biased since I made twederation. Hopefully I will be getting back to it very soon. I am excited about the new TiddlyServer work that was just released, that may be sufficient motivation for me to get back into everything.

Riz

unread,
Dec 3, 2016, 12:30:11 PM12/3/16
to TiddlyWiki
Hi Mat and Jed
Your work is one of the most expected works. However here are my concerns

1. Organization: Having documentation alone will not do. It must be organized under titles and subtitles and so and so. Orgnanization will provide answers for the questions you have, as well as serve to showcase the other possibilites and alternate methods in the same tree of questions, from different sources and users.

2. Scalability. If I remember correctly, I read somewhere that the scalability of an effort like Twederation will be difficult beyond a point. Shouldn't we opt for a solution that has the ability to expand?

3. Learning curve. For someone who is new to TW5, Twederation will be yet another thing he will have to learn, however simple it is being made into. This introduces the same hurdle that makes github not ideal. While we might not be able to make the process of creating documentation completely familiar, we should atleast provide a way to access the documentation on a familiar UI.

4. What if someone deletes his TW5? Will a copy of the documentation persist somewhere or will it be lost? Since twederation is not a client-server type setting, I guess not? If it will not persist, it means the whole structure of documentation becomes volatile. If it does, where will it stored?

5. Asking people to submit documentation is one thing, asking them to give access to a file that resides in their hard-drive is another. Call me paranoid.

6. The whole system depends on current browser security I assume. If they become stringent tomorrow, what will happen?

7. Yours is a voluntary effort. I am not in anyway questioning you guys' commitment to the project of Twederation, but what if at a point tomorrow life makes it hardly possible to maintain the project of Twederation?

I understand that people will not submit documentation eagerly. Hence the suggestion to make it a community agreement that if users get a satisfactory solution for their problem from the group, they will simply write it up and file it under the appropriate heading.

A lot of questions have very simple answers. It is quite sad that such an effort requires this much push.

I want to remind the group in general in no uncertain terms - there is a dearth of documentation. Unless we do that, in a world full of easy solutions, people will not get a chance to know TW. One of you veterans, if they take any kind of steps to set up such a community documentation, they will have my whole hearted support and I offer any kind of help I can provide.

Yours sincerely
Someone who realised yesterday that changes made to tiddlers starting with $:/state will not make TW dirty.

Ákos Szederjei

unread,
Dec 3, 2016, 1:45:49 PM12/3/16
to tiddl...@googlegroups.com
I think it is great that the additional possibilities of TW are organised and
made easily available for the general public.

Yet, I am not sure that we should replace the current TW file. As it is written
on the TW homepage it is a "unique non-linear notebook for capturing,
organising and sharing complex information". I think for that, the current
homepage is more than sufficient.
I am not against expanding the options, but I like the simplicity.

Also I like MediaWiki, but using for TW feels.....wrong. :) But again, maybe
it is a better option, I have no empirical reason against it.

Whatever you do, thanks for the work!

Ákos

Mark S.

unread,
Dec 3, 2016, 2:44:09 PM12/3/16
to TiddlyWiki
I can respond to points 4-7. I concur with points 1-3.

4. In theory, if dozens of sites have some portion of the documentation, then there will always be a backup copy somewhere.

5. Any active participant will need to post his TW federation on a public host. So nothing on his/her hard drive will be endangered.

6. The twederation system involves a web site pulling (effectively "browsing") another web-site. So no special security concerns should be raised. It's just an automated method of browsing Site B from within your own site A. Nothing gets saved to the original web-site except through standard web-server technologies (e.g. store.php).

7. In theory, if all the technical difficulties of Twederation can be hammered out, the mechanism itself would never need to be maintained (unless there is a significant change to TW5 itself). In theory (I'm saying that a lot) there is no central TW and anyone could take up the mantle and continue to maintain documentation.

IN PRACTICE, issues 1-3 kind of override issues 4-7. You really need someone(s) to organize stuff. Otherwise what you have is cluttered beyond utility. You need an on-ramp to the Twederation system, or you have to go hat-in-hand to someone who's already in the system to alert them to your presence and desire to be part of the network. Pulling from dozens (hundreds?) of sites is not practicable. So there needs to be one or 2 sites that have most of the documentation most of the time.

About pt. 5, most people do not run their own host, so almost everyone will probably end up using tiddlyspot. Which begs the issue, if everyone is on the same server anyway, why not have everyone on the same wikimedia site where things can be organized?

The last time I was active in testing, there were concerns about versioning (can you edit an existing tiddler, can anyone edit someone else's existing tiddler)  and authentication (how do you know who really said what?) What happens to older versions? There's not enough functional space in TW to keep everything (that is, the more you keep, the slower it gets). 

Twederation suffers from the same limitation as TW, which is that (unless you're running node.js) when you open a TW up you have to  pull the entire thing across the net. This means that as accumulated documentation hits 6 megs or so people are going to be experiencing serious lags. Pulling from other Twederation sites will have the same kind of speed limitation. This is why even though "hubs" aren't supposed to be part of a federation system, they will probably be required for a practical Twederation approach.

Enough rambling,
HTH
Mark


On Saturday, December 3, 2016 at 9:30:11 AM UTC-8, Riz wrote:
Hi Mat and Jed
Your work is one of the most expected works. However here are my concerns

Mark S.

unread,
Dec 3, 2016, 2:45:30 PM12/3/16
to TiddlyWiki
Jeremy,

Can you clarify? If we wanted to use material from TiddlyWiki.com for an alternate documentation system, is the material copy-right free?

Thanks!
Mark


Mark S.

unread,
Dec 3, 2016, 3:05:56 PM12/3/16
to tiddl...@googlegroups.com
Hello Josiah,

So, do you think the MAIN problem with tiddlywiki.com is lack of use-cases?

In that case, perhaps you could help identify areas that need better use-cases, and then we could add them ... and ta-dah! Done.

However, I don't think the one case you pointed out, "How do you append to a list a title with spaces using a text reference?" is a typical or general use-case. A creative person could probably think of a hundred such special cases, and they wouldn't be in any documentation just as "How do I paint the Mona Lisa?" would not be included with the documentation for a beginner's paint set.

However, once someone has figured out the solution to "How do you append to a list a title with spaces using a text reference?" then I suppose it could be added to TiddlyWiki.com? Perhaps in the How-To section?

If just adding a new entry is suitable, then maybe what we really need is a documentation group or documentation thread. People can nominate topics and solutions they have found that they would like added to the documentation. Others can grab the topics, indicate that they will be submitting the items to github (like calling "dibs"), and then make the submissions.

Have fun,
Mark

Jed Carty

unread,
Dec 3, 2016, 3:09:56 PM12/3/16
to TiddlyWiki
For the learning curve at least, if we have things set up with the federated wikis than all that would be required is for someone to make tiddlers, tag them with the appropriate tags and send a message. The idea is that if you want to contribute to the documentation than you put a wiki online (using tiddlyspot will be just fine for this), install the federation plugin and a plugin that has the tools for making documentation, create the tiddlers and then click a button that is part of the documentation creation plugin. The button will send a message to some non-tiddlywiki service, currently we have integration with google forms, and that will alert whoever is gathering the documentation that there is a new submission.

The person or people who are collecting the documentation will have plugins that check for new messages and then using the information stored in the messages fetch the new tiddlers from whoever submitted them. If you can make put a wiki on tiddlyspot and install a plugin than you should be able to contribute to the documentation. A lot of the problems are going to be from the UI, but Mat is pretty good at making UIs.

Scalibility is another problem. The completely serverless version TWederation uses gets unwieldy when you have a lot of wikis to check, but there are other projects that are using other methods of storing tiddlers and we could just integrate them into the federated wikis. It is a technical problem but it is one that I am looking forward to working on it.

As far as organization goes, this isn't going to have any problems we don't already have, and it is going to let anyone work on improving it so it may even be better.

Jed Carty

unread,
Dec 3, 2016, 3:14:34 PM12/3/16
to TiddlyWiki
As far as giving someone access to something on your harddrive, no part of how the federation is set up does that. If you are running a webserver from your computer than they can have read access to it, but it is impossible to use what I made to affect any wiki other than the one you own. Any danger from that would have to come from how you are serving the file and is independent of tiddlywiki or how they are federated.

Everything that is done is done in the browser or by whatever saver is normally used by a wiki, you actually have less access through what I made for federating the wikis than you do if you load a tiddlyspot page that you don't have the password for.

Mark S.

unread,
Dec 3, 2016, 3:45:58 PM12/3/16
to TiddlyWiki
For organization, it will be necessary to overwrite/rewrite an existing tiddler that someone else originated. It will also be necessary to delete tiddlers that someone else originated. How does Twederation currently deal with those scenarios?

Thanks,
Mark

Philippe Le Toquin

unread,
Dec 3, 2016, 4:21:00 PM12/3/16
to TiddlyWiki
Hello Mark,

"How do you append to a list a title with spaces using a text reference?" may not be a typical use-case (I am not even sure I understand what it means!!) but I think that as the use-case list grows then people will be saying "Wow you can do all that with Tw5!"

I personally used what was TW classic years ago and was mainly using it to keep some notes. I stopped because I lost my file due to no backup and couldn't not be bothered to start again.

More recently I rediscovered TW5 and decided to use it again. Reading some of the documentations (which is great for the most part!), I realised that it is more than a note keeping tool and that one can do a lot of things with it if you know how to "program" it. My own TW file that I use to manage my bakery was created because of some of the use-case I found and thought well that could be useful for what I would ideally want to do.

May be we should use the term Cookbook rather that use-case. 

Jed Carty

unread,
Dec 3, 2016, 4:47:01 PM12/3/16
to TiddlyWiki
Mark,

There has been some work on versioning but we don't have anything yet since twederation is still in the early stages. There can't really be answers to those questions yet because they will depend on a large part on the social structure used by the community making the documentation. I am going to write another post about how federating actually works in the context of twederation because there are a lot of misconceptions about it. The short version is that you don't have any control over anything other than the wiki(s) you own which makes a lot of problems people bring up when it comes to security and management irrelevant. It also brings up problems that people tend to not think about.

Riz

unread,
Dec 3, 2016, 10:26:39 PM12/3/16
to TiddlyWiki
Philip actually worded it better - the realization of a non-technical user "Wow you can do all that!!"

So let us summarize the discussion up until this point. Pending Jeremy's clarification whether we are permitted to undertake such an effort at all, we are considering two main options

1. Create a mediawiki
2. Twederation



a. As Mark said - The size of an organized TW file. Assuming the userbase of TW5 is gonna grow, the use-cases and alternative methods are going to grow into hundreds - for each widget or common task.

b. The work flow Jed outlined is not a exactly keeping it simple. Here is a hypothetical case. A user is working on a project using TW for overview of his shop. He asks the group a question and gets an answer. If we are asking him to document it, the steps he will have to go through will be.
     1. Create a tiddlyspot account and login
     2. Download a new tiddlywiki, host it on tiddlyspot, and write the documentation tiddlers.
     3. Install the federation plugin and the proposed documentation plugin that will alert the person who is collecting the documentation?
     4. Finally there should be one or several people who is supposed to actually add it to documentation ?

What is the advantage of Twederation here? We can as well ask the person to email it to the person collecting documentation, right?

I was hoping to avoid the "person collecting documentation" part. The user should be able to add it to the organized collection himself. The moderaters should only be burdened with overview of "is it okey."

yours sincerely
Riz.




Jed Carty

unread,
Dec 4, 2016, 3:14:32 AM12/4/16
to TiddlyWiki
In my case you wouldn't necessarily have to have the person who received the answer write it up. It would mean that anyone who has one of the tiddlyspot wikis already could easily contribute to the documentation without having to do more than add to their existing wiki. There are a number of us who already have wikis on tiddlyspot for documentation, this is just a method to make sharing updates easier.

Like I said, a lot of this will be social.

Riz

unread,
Dec 4, 2016, 7:41:05 AM12/4/16
to TiddlyWiki


On Sunday, 4 December 2016 13:44:32 UTC+5:30, Jed Carty wrote:
It would mean that anyone who has one of the tiddlyspot wikis already could easily contribute to the documentation without having to do more than add to their existing wiki.

That undermines the very need of this thread. If one or a group of people are ready to scan each and every post in this group and document it, the existing github method would do too.

The idea is to widen the net of document contributers and ensuring steady flow of documentation by making everyone a contributor. For that the steps need to be as simple as possible.




Jed Carty

unread,
Dec 4, 2016, 9:04:54 AM12/4/16
to TiddlyWiki
But if we do it through github than it would have to be on the main site and Jeremy would have to update tiddlywiki.com to add anything, and we would be restricted to what should be on the main site, which would mean we wouldn't be able to have the wide base of small examples and everything that we want to have. I was collecting things from the group for a while and Tobias has been very good about making examples out of everything, but recently both of busy with other things. So if we can make a system where we can have more people do that and make the results available to everyone instead of just on a few more well known sites than it will be a much better system than what we have now.

Josiah

unread,
Dec 4, 2016, 9:14:12 AM12/4/16
to TiddlyWiki
Ciao all

There are parts of this that are also responses to Riz, Matt, Jed & Mark. S.

I'll make a few comments that have bearing on this discussion ... and, hopefully, next steps.This repeats a lot of themes that will be obvious to many on TW but think its useful to especially keep the context very clear: Namely, a HUGE issue is simply the DYSFUNCTIONAL nature of GOOGLE GROUPS.

1 - RIZ is accurate in highlighting that many threads within this group are ALREADY (implicit) steps to documentation and that LEVERAGEING off that by getting those existing worthy threads compacted (explicitly) into...

 (a) statement of the ISSUE to solve;
 (b) the SOLUTION;
 (c) archived in an ORDERED way you can find them
  = One economical, time sparing, way forward.

IMO, THIS approach makes intuitive sense and perhaps has more chance of working than previous documentation efforts.

2a - PART of the issue at (1) is that this GOOGLE GROUP, though good for ongoing discussions, is SERIOUSLY DEFICIENT as an archive. Its EXTREMELY difficult to find relevant posts from the past because there is NO TAGGING of posts used (at the moment) and the search mechanism is VERY CRUDE...

2b - ... further, take this discussion we are having... In the months I have been in this group I have read and commented in several extensive discussions of DOCUMENTATION ISSUES. I have seen people come and go with attempts at addressing them. I have seen people create TW's aimed at helping beginners that then disappear from any awareness they existed. Sustained TRACTION did not happen. I think a large part of that is the MEDIUM for documentation needs to be...

 (a) sustainable;
 (b) uses one location / mechanism;
 (c) exists independent of any one writer;
 (d) is designed optimally for documentation;
 (e) is easy for beginners to use.  

2c - NOTE: WE, right now, in this very discussion, have not gone back and looked at previous discussions of this topic and cite them because the way the Google Group archive works is TOO UNWIELDY. OUR behaviour also instances the issue--NOT leveraging off what is already discussed and known. Result: Danger of re-creating the wheel.

Documentation is the OPPOSITE of this behaviour, its meant to end unnecessary going round things again & again. The medium you are in MATTERS to the outcome. Fact is Google Groups is CRAP at cumulative ORDERED knowledge. I believe that is a BIG part of the cause of the problems TW's users face over "missing documentation". Its not so much it has not been created (missing, as in "never existed"), more that is in BURIED fragments lost & dispersed in Google Group history.

3 - END the RECREATION OF THE WHEEL. The enthusiastic energy that people put into asking questions and replying to them is huge in this group. The good will to help is unrivaled.

BUT I see enormous redundancy over time where many questions & issues are VARIATIONS of something asked a ZILLION times before. In short, Google Groups eat their own history. SO documenting what is useful needs, to be sustainable, to be CONTEMPORANEOUS with resolution of issues in the Group, and needs to be saved elsewhere in a well indexed/tagged way.

Re-read (1) above.

4 - TWEDERATION. MATT, JED & MARK S. There has been discussion of whether Twederation is an appropriate medium for documentation. Whilst I think it could be eventually be a vehicle to shared documentation I'm very skeptical if it should be the first stop on this. Why?

 (a) for beginner users, who most need documentation, TWED is not yet integrated enough into basic TW. It's in danger of being CATCH-22 ... "... you can't get to the documentation until you have read the documentation on how to get to it.";
 (b) it would have to work transparently; such that the new user would need to do virtually nothing to set it up;
 (c) As far as I understand it, Twederation is not dedicated to documentation alone and all the issues of how you "document documentation" (vital to usage; you must be able to find what relevantly answers ones' queries) are not touched on at all yet. In short there are ...
   (i) TOO MANY UNKOWNS right now;
   (ii) It NOT OPTIMAL for beginners as is.

So, my conclusion: Though TWED is a really great innovation it's a thing of the far future as far as the documentation issue goes IMO.

I feel bringing TWED into this debate without a finished product demoing how it could optimize documentation is muddying the waters.


Riz's suggestion of using extant systems like MediaWiki still seems in the right kinda direction. A properly designed TiddlyWiki could also do the job though it would need an update mechanism for contributions and people to maintain it to be sustainable. And that has proven a big issue in the past.

I will comment on the USE CASE points that MARK.S raised in a later email.

Best wishes
Josiah

Mat

unread,
Dec 4, 2016, 9:22:52 AM12/4/16
to TiddlyWiki
Riz wrote:

1. Organization: Having documentation alone will not do. It must be organized under titles and subtitles and so and so.
 
I disagree; consider any internet search engine for example. The idea to put everything in a pretty tree structure was abandoned decades ago. In the latest hangout we even discussed the problems with a structure for the TW controlpanel.

In fact, a key idea in TW is the non-linearity. Instead it relies on linking and we could use community tagging to categorizing things. In TW2, there was a plugin called the tagsplorer macro where you, if I recall, typed in or selected a tag (say "Foo") and this made you see a list of.. NOT the tiddlers tagged such, but the tags of those tiddlers. You then, among those tags, selected a second tag ("Bar") to again get a smaller list of all tags from tiddlers being tagged both Foo and Bar... etc. Parallel to this was a list showing the actual tiddlers tagged with all the selected tags. ...I'm just giving this as an example of how one can find stuff rather effectively without pretty trees.


2. Scalability. If I remember correctly, I read somewhere that the scalability of an effort like Twederation will be difficult beyond a point. Shouldn't we opt for a solution that has the ability to expand?

Well, the main idea is just that it shoudl be possible to transfer tiddlers between tiddlywikis. This idea is not bound to any particular implementation, IMO. The current implementation probably has limitations but there can be multiple, and parallel, solutions. The enormous benefit to have the documentation in tiddlers, as opposed to e.g some mediawiki or other system, is that you can use the documentation just like other tiddlers - slice'n dice, manipulate etc.


3. Learning curve. For someone who is new to TW5, Twederation will be yet another thing he will have to learn, however simple it is being made into. This introduces the same hurdle that makes github not ideal. While we might not be able to make the process of creating documentation completely familiar, we should atleast provide a way to access the documentation on a familiar UI.

Any new system would have a learning curve. But something like Github is beyond our control... and more interestingly, it is beyond your control. TW is to a great extent within your control! I know of no other documentation infrastrucuture where we can so freely change the UI if it is not to liking. If you "know TW" then the learning curve to "know TWederation" should probably not be that tricky... since it is built in TW. Jed, who has done the absolute majority of the actual coding, has been careful to make things "native TW5" in TWederation. But again, this is just the current implementation. And it is not yet good enough for general use.
 

4. What if someone deletes his TW5? Will a copy of the documentation persist somewhere or will it be lost? Since twederation is not a client-server type setting, I guess not? If it will not persist, it means the whole structure of documentation becomes volatile. If it does, where will it stored?

Fetching means to copy what you want. At least in curren implementation. There can also be a community aggregation for someting as important as docs, i.e it can be an aggregating place much like tiddlywiki.com


5. Asking people to submit documentation is one thing, asking them to give access to a file that resides in their hard-drive is another. Call me paranoid.

In current implementation; Only access to public data. Nobody shares things they don't want to. 


6. The whole system depends on current browser security I assume. If they become stringent tomorrow, what will happen?

What else will happen tomorrow?


7. Yours is a voluntary effort. I am not in anyway questioning you guys' commitment to the project of Twederation, but what if at a point tomorrow life makes it hardly possible to maintain the project of Twederation?

I hope you see how this has been answered implicitly in the previous replies.
 

I understand that people will not submit documentation eagerly. Hence the suggestion to make it a community agreement that if users get a satisfactory solution for their problem from the group, they will simply write it up and file it under the appropriate heading.

Yes! Go ahead! :-)

...or, let me save you sime time: Ain't gonna happen. Not that I wouldn't want it to happen but it has proven to simply not work, for several reasons. Besides, if people did already get the solution "from the group" i.e here on the boards(!) ...then it is already here and you can find it here. OR you can look at it another way; What you ask for is already being done! That is partly how documentation comes to tiddlywiki.com. Everyone is grateful if you contribute to it even more.

Hope this has answered some of your question.


<:-)

Hiru Yoru

unread,
Dec 4, 2016, 9:26:12 AM12/4/16
to TiddlyWiki
Has anybody considered making an official Wikipedia-esque page where anybody can come along and add documentation, edit, or expand it if they feel like it? I mean, it worked for Wikipedia. They have a whole world full of people contributing to it, and all they had to do was set the site up and allow people to edit it. This isn't just the case with Wikipedia, but with plenty of other wiki sites, some topic-specific like Wikia.

There could even be a section for plugins and extensions where people could add code to their own plugins/extensions, which would help those learning about the inner-workings of TiddlyWiki, by example.

I don't know if anyone's proposed this, but it seems very workable to me. It also doesn't require some vast organizational paradigm shift to happen in order to implement. No groups need to be formed, people don't need to meet up or chat or take meeting minutes. You just set up the wiki and then let everybody do whatever work they can. Have two sections -- one for Classic and one for TW5 (because both are still in use). Then, just let people contribute.

I mean, you need the hosting space, but after that, the community will take over.

That's my thinking, anyway,
Hiru

Riz

unread,
Dec 4, 2016, 10:24:55 AM12/4/16
to TiddlyWiki


I disagree; consider any internet search engine for example. The idea to put everything in a pretty tree structure was abandoned decades ago.

Well here is the first link to the google search "Examples of Best Documentation". https://documentor.in/2148/best-examples-product-documentation-guides/
What all of the have in common, is organization.


If you "know TW" then the learning curve to "know TWederation" should probably not be that tricky.

Know TW being the keyword.

Fetching means to copy what you want. At least in curren implementation. There can also be a community aggregation for someting as important as docs, i.e it can be an aggregating place much like tiddlywiki.com.

Here is a situation. I made a write-up on something. It is now part of the documentation. UserB fetched it. Now I delete it. Tomorrow another person is coming along looking for the write up. Will he be able to find the write from UserB's copy? Remember UserB has not shared it from his wiki nor is he aware of the fact that I have deleted it.



What else will happen tomorrow?

I am going to disagree with your tone here. Should I file it under "Wits and Sarcasm from Internet strangers?"
Here is what might actually happen tomorrow. TW5 is depending on the immense generosty of two individuals for Tiddlyspot, which they are running solely for the sake of this group. Have anyone considered what happens when they reach a point when they can no longer afford to? While demise of a free service can happen to virtually anything, which one is more probable - a hosting solution aimed at a single group or a hosting solution that is depended by several?
 If and when that happens, the whole tiddlyspace cycle will have to be repeated. We have to count on every person who ever contributed to TW5 to shift his contribution and link up again.


let me save you sime time: Ain't gonna happen. Not that I wouldn't want it to happen but it has proven to simply not work, for several reasons.

Has such an effort where people are asked to submit documentation in return for the help from this group already tried? Can you show a part where it was tested?



Besides, if people did already get the solution "from the group" i.e here on the boards(!) ...then it is already here and you can find it here.

Then pray tell me, how come this group begets several questions a day. How come people still come up empty when they look for -say - how to add a border to a tiddler? or how to hide a single field? I do not think it is the first time anyone wanted to have a button that moves a tiddler up the story-river. It is an easy solution. Jed answered it beautifully and demonstrated several methods to achieve the same. Now try and search for  "Move tiddler up" or "Move tiddler up the sory-river." How deep do you have to go to find Jed's answer?


What you ask for is already being done!

Well I guess my whole write ups has failed to convey what I want then.






Josiah

unread,
Dec 4, 2016, 11:38:25 AM12/4/16
to TiddlyWiki
Ciao Mat

Two points. Organisation is not necessarily hierarchy. Modest hierarchies are ubiquitously used on the internet to organise stuff.

In my understanding, Riz isn't aspiring to a system of systems. He's sensibly pointing out that right now finding (past) solutions is UNWIELDY & largely unworkable in this Group. Like me he's particularly looking at a central forum for emergent potential documentation, which is THIS Google Group.  I just wrote at some length about that and think his proposed solution is as good as I have seen to date.

IMO, THIS group is itself THE instance of the issue & the solution. The problem is not the people, its the way Google Groups works that is magnifying the problem.

Best wishes
Josiah

Mat

unread,
Dec 4, 2016, 11:43:29 AM12/4/16
to TiddlyWiki
Hi again Riz

First of all; I appreciate your questions. I tried to answer them the best I could, which included questioning some of them because some were based on misunderstandings or assumptions that didn't make sense to me. Another option would be to not reply but I think that is less constructive.


I disagree; consider any internet search engine for example. The idea to put everything in a pretty tree structure was abandoned decades ago.

Well here is the first link to the google search "Examples of Best Documentation". https://documentor.in/2148/best-examples-product-documentation-guides/
What all of the have in common, is organization.

Well, my point was that even something as huge as the web can be searchable by using a different approach. Documentation does not have to be put under hierarchical titles in the traditional sense, to be useful. And, especially, it wouldn't necessarily have to be manually organized in such a way. TW provides us with rather powerful tools to organize stuff.
 

If you "know TW" then the learning curve to "know TWederation" should probably not be that tricky.

Know TW being the keyword.

True. 
 

Fetching means to copy what you want. At least in curren implementation. There can also be a community aggregation for someting as important as docs, i.e it can be an aggregating place much like tiddlywiki.com.

Here is a situation. I made a write-up on something. It is now part of the documentation. UserB fetched it. Now I delete it. Tomorrow another person is coming along looking for the write up. Will he be able to find the write from UserB's copy? Remember UserB has not shared it from his wiki nor is he aware of the fact that I have deleted it.

In the current(!!) implementation of TWederation, if UserB is not sharing it well then he can't find it, there. If it is an important piece of documentation, why was it only shared with UserB? Why not to a community doc aggregation?


What else will happen tomorrow?

I am going to disagree with your tone here. Should I file it under "Wits and Sarcasm from Internet strangers?"
[ + ...what if Tiddlyspot closes down ]

First of all; no offense meant. My point is just that; Yes, what will happen? Will there be a backup system? Will browsers start blocking some key feature that TW itself relies on, not just TWedreation? We don't know and it is hard to work preemptively on this. And who should work on this? Nobody is getting paid here. We don't even have resources to have documentation that people find sufficient. So it is probably better to deal with these very-hard-to-predict-matters when/if they occur. You're right, TiddlySpot won't last forever. Especially considering how much people like you and I are paying them for their service. The risk of it closing down is very much part of the whole system and we can only e joy it while it lasts, just like free browsers and other free or paid services. 


let me save you sime time: Ain't gonna happen. Not that I wouldn't want it to happen but it has proven to simply not work, for several reasons.

Has such an effort where people are asked to submit documentation in return for the help from this group already tried? Can you show a part where it was tested?

Yes; tiddlywiki.org is one such attempt. One of the most successful ones, I might add, and still not a success. But don't take my word for it; please do go ahead. I'd add an article or two because I would want it to work. I just "know" it won't. No offense.

 
Besides, if people did already get the solution "from the group" i.e here on the boards(!) ...then it is already here and you can find it here.

Then pray tell me, how come this group begets several questions a day.

Yes, ironic, but I'd say it is because we're dealing with a very complex product. Or perhaps very "unlimited" product and the community consists of people with a wide variety of needs and levels of skill.

 
How come people still come up empty when they look for -say - how to add a border to a tiddler? or how to hide a single field? I do not think it is the first time anyone wanted to have a button that moves a tiddler up the story-river. It is an easy solution. Jed answered it beautifully and demonstrated several methods to achieve the same. Now try and search for  "Move tiddler up" or "Move tiddler up the sory-river." How deep do you have to go to find Jed's answer?

Yes, the search in Google groups is astonishingly poor considering it's google.


Ok, hope this clarifies a bit.

Thanks for your thoughts, Riz.

<:-)

Riz

unread,
Dec 4, 2016, 11:52:09 AM12/4/16
to TiddlyWiki


I am ending with this post. I feel I am taking up a crusade nobody is bothered about.

We can go to and fro for long time debating hypotheticals. An easy way for refutation and clarification is actually setting up the documentation using whatever platform you deem fit.

Mat

unread,
Dec 4, 2016, 1:36:18 PM12/4/16
to TiddlyWiki
Riz wrote:
I am ending with this post. I feel I am taking up a crusade nobody is bothered about.

We can go to and fro for long time debating hypotheticals. An easy way for refutation and clarification is actually setting up the documentation using whatever platform you deem fit.

I think many are bothered but it's a tricky one. There have been many ideas over the years (including ideas about mediawiki, probably even myself suggesting it) but it is a complex issue. I sincerely hope someone will prove my pessimism wrong.

BTW, here is an idea I had some years ago, for documentation. The idea, if I recall, was to scrape the google group posts and convert them into tiddler chains that reflected the discussion threads here, initially. But then they'd be editable and taggable and because it is/was tiddlyspace people could include the wiki and refine stuff. Like the absolute majority of my ideas, it went nowhere. I didn't tell anyone about this particular idea except Eric, and I think I only recently may have referred to it somewhere. Some ideas from it still linger in my mind to be implemented in TWederation.

<:-)

David Gifford

unread,
Dec 4, 2016, 5:27:30 PM12/4/16
to tiddl...@googlegroups.com
Wow it has been fun getting the back and forth from this thread in my inbox. All I want to say is, wheels have a right to a little recreation, too. Why would Josiah want to end their recreation? :-)

I hope something is worked out. My vote would be for twederation, but my own contributions would most likely be on a TW of my own, and then if anyone wants to copy and paste tiddlers from that into the twederation, they could do that.



--
You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "TiddlyWiki" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/tiddlywiki/R5Ml_P8IO5g/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to tiddlywiki+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to tiddl...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/tiddlywiki.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tiddlywiki/8abaf0e7-d67e-4f5e-9c1e-f5a73e45563a%40googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.



--
David Gifford
Christian Reformed World Missions, Mexico City

David Gifford

unread,
Dec 4, 2016, 5:28:16 PM12/4/16
to tiddl...@googlegroups.com
I should say, though, that I would be completely fine with it being MediaWiki.

Thomas Elmiger

unread,
Dec 4, 2016, 5:33:19 PM12/4/16
to TiddlyWiki
Ciao Josiah & Co.

Josiah, you had me at 2c – it strikes me, that one big advantage of MediaWiki is it’s versioning: you have the last summary for a topic on one page while it’s history and possibly a discussion are just one click away. For me as a simple user they live on the same page. As we all know, TW5 does not have (built in) versioning, neither does Google Groups.

As TW5 content can be shared as text or JSON, solutions could be attached to and imported from any documentation system and thus become independent from the availability of private wikis. So I do not see a TW system as the only practical solution.

On the other hand: Who should manage a central documentation for the community? This task should not be underestimated … I am afraid there is no easy solution here.

Cheers
Thomas

Josiah

unread,
Dec 5, 2016, 6:41:23 AM12/5/16
to TiddlyWiki
Ciao Mat

That idea of leveraging off Google Groups via scraping posts is a neat one. But, I think it would be unworkable retrospectively without the scraper TAGGING them and doing that accurately for what sounds like swathes of history. It looks to me  far too complex & time consuming.

A more modest proposal would be to do that CONTEMPORANEOUSLY, or near contemporaneously, knowing that re-presenting the GG threads in some kind of ordered way would build, over time, a very useful resource.

That was a major theme that I & Riz reflected in our different ways too.

Best wishes
Josiah

Sylvain Naudin

unread,
Dec 5, 2016, 7:14:19 AM12/5/16
to TiddlyWiki


Le dimanche 4 décembre 2016 04:26:39 UTC+1, Riz a écrit :
So let us summarize the discussion up until this point. Pending Jeremy's clarification whether we are permitted to undertake such an effort at all, we are considering two main options

1. Create a mediawiki
2. Twederation

Bonjour :)

I would add two options :

3. write on http://flossmanuals.net/ wich is a great collaborative place to write documentation for open source projects

4. migrate from Google Groups to a real forum tools, like Discourse (I use it for french community even if it cost me a little, it's my contribution to promote TW). We can have most of all Google Groups fonctionality (like email post) and even more, and there is a wiki inside, so it is really fast and easy to convert a thread to a wiki format.

Best regards,
Sylvain

Rizwan Ishak

unread,
Dec 5, 2016, 7:39:22 AM12/5/16
to tiddl...@googlegroups.com

That is a really good suggestion - a proper forum. Even reddit would have been a good alternative. Last time someone suggested this, the objection raised was that the amount of data in this group cannot be migrated. But that is sunken cost fallacy, we have created a non-ideal past doesn't mean we can't change. 


--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TiddlyWiki" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to tiddlywiki+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to tiddl...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/tiddlywiki.

Josiah

unread,
Dec 5, 2016, 8:14:46 AM12/5/16
to TiddlyWiki
Ciao Riz & Sylvian

Since Google Groups does not have any organised history at all, in practice past learning is just dropping off the cliff into a void once a thread is completed.

A forum that had tagging and proper search/filter mechanisms would be a huge step in the right direction IMO. I think the point is we need to Tag and otherwise index stuff AS IT HAPPENS. From that would grow meaningful structure which could be leveraged further. As is everything is the same once sunk in the Google Group swamp.

Best wishes
Josiah


On Monday, 5 December 2016 13:39:22 UTC+1, Riz wrote:

That is a really good suggestion - a proper forum. Even reddit would have been a good alternative. Last time someone suggested this, the objection raised was that the amount of data in this group cannot be migrated. But that is sunken cost fallacy, we have created a non-ideal past doesn't mean we can't change. 

On 05-Dec-2016 5:44 PM, "Sylvain Naudin" <sil...@gmail.com> wrote:


Le dimanche 4 décembre 2016 04:26:39 UTC+1, Riz a écrit :
So let us summarize the discussion up until this point. Pending Jeremy's clarification whether we are permitted to undertake such an effort at all, we are considering two main options

1. Create a mediawiki
2. Twederation

Bonjour :)

I would add two options :

3. write on http://flossmanuals.net/ wich is a great collaborative place to write documentation for open source projects

4. migrate from Google Groups to a real forum tools, like Discourse (I use it for french community even if it cost me a little, it's my contribution to promote TW). We can have most of all Google Groups fonctionality (like email post) and even more, and there is a wiki inside, so it is really fast and easy to convert a thread to a wiki format.

Best regards,
Sylvain

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TiddlyWiki" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to tiddlywiki+...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to tiddl...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/tiddlywiki.

Josiah

unread,
Dec 5, 2016, 10:03:18 AM12/5/16
to TiddlyWiki
Ciao Philippe

I think you hit on a central point. The SEEING of "WOW, you can do THAT!"

IMO we are selling ourselves short in NOT showing enough USE CASES to make clear HOW FLEXIBLE TiddlyWiki is. Or rather, they do get shown/mentioned in the Google Group BUT because of the way it works once the thread is old you have no way to easily find them.

Overall I think we make life harder for beginners than it should be.

Best wishes
Josiah
Message has been deleted

Stacy Cunningham

unread,
Dec 6, 2016, 1:45:26 AM12/6/16
to TiddlyWiki
Hi everyone,

I say, why does it have to be one way or the other? Why not both? TWederation and something like a MediaWiki?

They both have their benefits and approach the problems differently. The former seems to be more of a search engine of different ideas while the latter is a more orderly instructional guide.

Find who wants to do what and let them go at it.


All the best,
Stacy



On Wednesday, November 30, 2016 at 11:36:44 AM UTC-5, Josiah wrote:
Ciao tutti

In the last two weeks I've had extensive private correspondence with three folk over on Twitter who want to know where to find the "real documentation" for TiddlyWiki. After pointing to what documentation there is I suggested they ask in the group on specific things they want to do.

If I hadn't engaged in that discussion with them I would never have know there are potential users who are likely passing on from not being able to grasp enough quickly enough to be able to utilise TW well.

I think its a problem (for them at least) as is.

Just saying ...
Josiah

Raymond McDowell

unread,
Dec 6, 2016, 3:57:12 AM12/6/16
to TiddlyWiki
Just a thought after having an exchange with former ShadowPlan users who are uncomfortable moving to TiddlyWiki.

Would it be workable to have an empty TW5 with a set of plug-ins and macros set up to provide ready made and  intuitive experience for new users? Why can't the download (perhaps a zip file) already have tiddlyfox included, a checklist macro that uses fields to designate the tag the list is based on, the rename macro and a comprehensive set of functions that do not initially require digging under the hood?

The key is making the initial experience intuitive and easy to use

Ray 

Jed Carty

unread,
Dec 6, 2016, 4:26:36 AM12/6/16
to TiddlyWiki
Raymond, 

That is the idea behind having different editions. Unfortunately there aren't many editions created or supported. So if you have something you want put together a wiki for an edition and we can see about getting it listed. As far as tiddlyfox goes, you generally get it from within the browser interface so including it in a zip would be a bit weird.

I made this a while ago to address what you are talking about but never received any feedback about it so I haven't bothered with it in a long time. http://nolearningrequired-full.tiddlyspot.com

PMario

unread,
Dec 6, 2016, 6:14:31 AM12/6/16
to TiddlyWiki
Hi Folks,
Following the thread with interest. ... Just didn't have time to respond, because it will be a "wall of text"  - warning :)

On Tuesday, December 6, 2016 at 9:57:12 AM UTC+1, Raymond McDowell wrote:
Just a thought after having an exchange with former ShadowPlan users who are uncomfortable moving to TiddlyWiki.

ShadowPlan? .. Do you have a link?
 
Would it be workable to have an empty TW5 with a set of plug-ins and macros set up to provide ready made and  intuitive experience for new users?

As Jed pointed out. That's what editions are for.
 
Why can't the download (perhaps a zip file) already have tiddlyfox included,

TiddlyFox is a browser plugin. So it should be installed from the Mozilla addOn platform. Installing browser addOns from untrusted sources is a big security risk!
 
a checklist macro that uses fields to designate the tag the list is based on, the rename macro and a comprehensive set of functions that do not initially require digging under the hood?

--- OT --- @Raymond  This response is OffTopic and I don't want to hijack the thread. So you should open a new thread if you want to respond to the following section.

IMO this "one" liner seems to be simple to implement but it doesn't contain enough information to create something that you want. eg:

 - there is no "rename macro" in the core. Are you talking about "search and replace" functionality?

 - checklist macro ... is simple .. but .. "checklist macro that uses fields to designate the tag the list is based on" is too vague, to know what you want since "fields" and "tags" are 2 slightly different things in TW.

 - "a comprehensive set of functions .." can be anything and everything, depending on who you talk to.

------------ end OT

have fun!
mario

Mark S.

unread,
Dec 6, 2016, 10:20:09 AM12/6/16
to TiddlyWiki
What is shadowplan? Link? My google search only wanted to find "shadowplay".

Mark

David Gifford

unread,
Dec 6, 2016, 10:23:02 AM12/6/16
to tiddl...@googlegroups.com

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "TiddlyWiki" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/tiddlywiki/R5Ml_P8IO5g/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to tiddlywiki+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to tiddl...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/tiddlywiki.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Mark S.

unread,
Dec 6, 2016, 10:59:12 AM12/6/16
to TiddlyWiki
Oh, I probably used that more than a decade ago before my palm died.

Seems like shadowplan works a lot like WorkFlowy, which could be emulated with view templates and the TOC macro. See attached.

Mark



On Tuesday, December 6, 2016 at 7:23:02 AM UTC-8, David Gifford wrote:
On Tue, Dec 6, 2016 at 9:20 AM, 'Mark S.' via TiddlyWiki <tiddl...@googlegroups.com> wrote:
What is shadowplan? Link? My google search only wanted to find "shadowplay".

Mark

On Tuesday, December 6, 2016 at 12:57:12 AM UTC-8, Raymond McDowell wrote:
Just a thought after having an exchange with former ShadowPlan users who are uncomfortable moving to TiddlyWiki.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "TiddlyWiki" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/tiddlywiki/R5Ml_P8IO5g/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to tiddlywiki+...@googlegroups.com.
ScreenClip.png

Josiah

unread,
Dec 6, 2016, 12:09:34 PM12/6/16
to TiddlyWiki
I just replied to Riz on Reddit as follows ...

http://tinyurl.com/zfdmo29 ....

I have both initiated and participated in several debates over documentation for TiddlyWiki. As this one goes on I have the sense its a LOT better than previous discussions.


There is some chance it might fruit.


A big difference from previous discussions is there is a much broader IMPLICIT understanding, somewhat absent before, that (1) documentation does NOT have to involve vast effort external to ongoing discussion; (2) that proto-documentation is already in the Google Group discussions everyday; (3) Google Groups is a big part of the problem as it works as an ongoing flow that loses its own history all the time.

Josiah

unread,
Dec 6, 2016, 2:27:09 PM12/6/16
to TiddlyWiki
Ciao Jed, Mark S. & tutti

Seeing FULL WORKING TIDDLYWIKIS that exemplify different aspects of what TW can do is, in my case, the single biggest HELP. 

I am not good with "in principle" minimalist demos or "foo-bar" stuff. That's my cognitive limitation, I think,  and its a bit more extreme than normal. Though maybe not a million miles away from some beginner's experiences.

I have learnt the MOST from FULL CONTENT TW's that do things I need to do. In these cases I can grasp the underlying code much more easily BECAUSE I can see SUBSTANTIVE OUTPUT.

IMO, a simple GALLERY of extant full TW's solving different issues would help. Of course there are ALREADY pointers to exemplars within the core documentation. And well as galleries that exist, but really not on TW5 and not up to date.

Its just a fact that many of the most exiciting TW's I will never get to see because their authors are creating them (a) offline; (b) or if online then not specifically identified or linked to to look at. You have to catch them as you go along reading the Goggle Group when they come up in discussion.

In fact we don't even really know what exists. TW does not track anything.

This is NOT a complaint. It's an observation. But it has some bearing on documentation. Why?

Because seeing finished, functional, replete TW's is likely one of the MOST important routes to understanding USE CASES. It certainly is for me.

SO ... perhaps PART of concerns about documentation could be encouragement of more people to upload their TW's so that people can look at them. IMO that might solve a LOT of issues to do with HOW to use TW for DIFFERENT purposes (i.e. USE CASES).

Best wishes
Josiah

Mark S.

unread,
Dec 6, 2016, 3:00:03 PM12/6/16
to TiddlyWiki
If that's what you want, just submit a write-up to Jeremy/github about any new sites you find, and encourage others to do the same. There's already a short list at tiddlywiki.com/Community/Examples.

We could have a sticky thread (Gallery) in this forum nominating sites as they are discovered, and whoever wants to could do the github submission.

Mark

Jeremy Ruston

unread,
Dec 10, 2016, 8:38:09 AM12/10/16
to tiddl...@googlegroups.com
My apologies for being quiet on this thread so far. It’s mainly due to being insanely busy with day job work, punctuated by a bad cold. Thank you to everyone for taking the trouble to contribute. I’ve read all the messages with great interest. It’s wonderful that there are so many people who feel passionately about the issue, and are prepared to help, and frustrating that we’ve been less than stellar at harnessing that energy.

First, I agree strongly with the consensus that:

* The existing documentation isn’t serving the needs of our users
* The update cycle for content changes to tiddlywiki.com is unacceptably slow
* GitHub presents a huge psychological burden for would-be contributors
* Google Groups is pretty poor

I have always believed that my own primary focus should be on building and maintaining the authoritative core reference documentation. As discussed in this thread, such documentation cannot meet the needs of all users, but it is an essential bedrock on which all other documentation needs to be based.

Beyond that reference material, we need multiple different tutorials to meet the needs of different users. The most useful material should be on tiddlywiki.com (such as the material that Dave contributed), and the rest should be easy to find from there.

Related, we also sorely lack a convenient place to share snippets of TW wikitext.

Beyond that, I generally think:

a) TiddlyWiki is both powerful and complex: by any reasonable dimensions, it is several orders of magnitude more complex than something like Workflowy. With that level of complexity, for many users, just learning the vocabulary that enables them to use documentation is a huge barrier — in fact, even if we had great, complete documentation, I believe that we would find that many users still wouldn’t read it (that is a common experience for other projects). As Josiah has highlighted, just getting saving to work is a barrier for many users. Even if we reduce the number of clicks, the process is conceptually too far away from familiar paradigms to be intuitive for most users. The solution is simple: switch to using TiddlyWiki in a server-based configuration, but you lose the offline capability. That’s the trade-off: conventional usability vs. the ability to do something that no mainstream web application can support

b) GitHub isn’t the only barrier to contributing documentation on tiddlywiki.com. It may not look like it, but a lot of effort over the years has been taken by several people to try to standardise the formatting and presentation. For example, there are a bunch of macros and templates that thread together the filter documentation. There’s a level of complexity to those macros that will never be intuitive to a casual user, but are needed in order to help us maintain consistency

c) Ultimately and ideally, we should base TiddlyWiki documentation efforts on TiddlyWiki itself

d) I struggle with the expectation that the documentation can or should directly address a question like "How do you append to a list a title with spaces using a text reference”. It’s both complex and specific, and it lacks enough information for a definitive answer (I loved Mark’s response about buying a book on first aid and complaining that there's no chapter on removing kidneys). Anyhow, responding to that question involves several different mechanisms, and thus would be very hard to anticipate as something to be answered directly in the documentation. Put another way, I see TiddlyWiki as being made up of a relatively small number of parts that can be combined in lots of different ways. It’s reasonable for us to document those parts exhaustively, but we will never be able to directly document every way in which they can be combined

I’d also add a few clarifications:

* The current TWederation work by Jed, Mat and others is primarily focussed on peer-to-peer federation. That’s a fundamentally tricky thing. Like TiddlyWiki saving itself in the browser, it goes beyond what browsers are designed to do. But it works, and opens up some fascinating use cases. Meanwhile, we can also do federation on the server under Node.js, where the technical difficulties melt away. That’s how the threaded discussion on http://tiddlywiki.com/tiddlywiki-eu-meetup-2016/ was built; the result is a simple HTML file that downloads swiftly.

* Riz mentions the problem that off-the-shelf JavaScripts are hard to integrate with TiddlyWiki. Again that’s a trade-off; partly related to security, but also architectural concerns: TW5 could have stuck with the 10-year old jQuery style architecture, or it could have adopted the newer virtual DOM style architecture that’s now been adopted by Angular, React and all the other leading web frameworks of the last few years — many of them have the same difficulties with integrating older-style scripts. TW5’s choices mean that we get serverside rendering which I think is generally worth it. I should also mention that it’s pretty easy for a developer to integrate non-DOM-oriented 3rd party libraries. There are nearly a dozen 3rd party libraries already packaged as plugins in the core library, and many more elsewhere.

* To answer another question posed by Riz,  I don’t think that the Tiddlyverse is at all averse to the idea of setting up an organized community documentation.

* Mark asks whether the stuff currently in TiddlyWiki now technically copyrighted, or can it be ported to another working environment. This is a good example of something that should be crystal clear from the existing documentation: all of TiddlyWiki's documentation is made available under the same BSD license as the code. I’ve no idea what the copyright position is on the Google Group posts, mind you.

Thinking about some specific proposals from this thread:

* I’m not averse to evaluating Discourse as an interim solution. I’m not sure whether it would be better to replace or augment the existing Google Group

* I do not favour adopting MediaWiki, mainly because TW’s wiki syntax is confusing enough without burdening authors with an additional syntax (people will long memories will recall that tiddlywiki.org was based on mediawiki in 2008/9)

Please let me know if I’ve missed any points in the thread,

Best wishes

Jeremy

-- 

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TiddlyWiki" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to tiddlywiki+...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to tiddl...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/tiddlywiki.

Riz

unread,
Dec 10, 2016, 10:56:20 AM12/10/16
to TiddlyWiki
Hi Jeremy

First of all, I did not intent to cast doubts upon the intend of the group when I asked why are we averse to the idea of community documentation, was merely pointing out inability to deliver an easy system.

2 points.

1. The platform of choice pending to be agreed upon, how about the suggestion to ask the users to update their posts with a summary of their answers?As I said already in a previous post, here is how I see it.
  1.  Pin to the top of the group, at least for some time, a set of formatting and styling instructions.
  2.  When a user asks a question and he gets an answer, he should simply edit his question and add the answer according to the format.
    This workflow provides some advantages. One is the obvious delegation of work. Whoever is collecting documentation wherever he wishes to, won't it be easier if he can simply copy and paste these rather than writing it up himself?
    I understand the documentation macros and all, but community documentation can be held to a different, simpler standards, right? Users who asks questions and are able to follow instructions to resolve it, can obviously write that up too. The only hurdle is it should be a binding agreement in the community.

2. If you are strongly considering DISCOURSE, I would like to propose reddit as a contender. Here is my points to consider reddit
  1. It provides a forum free of cost.
  2. Creating an account is just a matter of creating a username and password. If you do not plan to amass reddit points, you can have a different reddit account literally everytime you log in.
  3. It has an inbuilt Wiki too. As a matter of fact we are collecting a comprehensive list of plugins for TW5 in reddit wiki here https://www.reddit.com/r/TiddlyWiki5/wiki/pluginsandresources. Currently it has more than 200 plugins listed.
  4. You can opt-in for other options too, like email notifications.
  5. Provisions for Automoderation. You can set it to automatically tag posts based on keywords, create weekly posts and stick it to the top of thread etc. This would help with organizing the posts at a later point as you can list posts based on tags.
  6. Last but not least, a casual internet user is much more likely to come across TiddlyWiki in reddit over Discourse or google groups. Reddit promotes its active and upcoming subreddits. Reddit userbase spans far and wide.

Mark S.

unread,
Dec 10, 2016, 1:17:30 PM12/10/16
to TiddlyWiki
How about a thread that gets pinned to the top where new documentation entries can be posted?

People who ask questions aren't necessarily good at documentation, and it might be pouring cold water on the whole discourse thing to demand it of them. But collecting finished responses into one thread, thus making it easy(ier) to incorporate into the main tiddlywiki, seems doable.

Mark

Ákos Szederjei

unread,
Dec 10, 2016, 1:48:12 PM12/10/16
to tiddl...@googlegroups.com
I can only ad my opinion from a user's point of view, so I skip the
technical parts.

> * The existing documentation isn’t serving the needs of our users

Despite that, I found the current documentation a very good for quick
starter info. After that the requirements diverge for each users,
depending on the purpose of the TW.


> * GitHub presents a huge psychological burden for would-be contributors

Definitely. I made a GitHub account recently, and found it very "geeky",
both in good and bad way.

> * Google Groups is pretty poor

Yes, I agree!

> * I’m not averse to evaluating Discourse as an interim solution. I’m not
> sure whether it would be better to replace or augment the existing
> Google Group

Some projects I am watching / contributing as a user / translator
switched to Discourse. While it has some shiny parts, like scrolling
discussions, dynamic quotes, etc, I found most of them unnecessary. The
tag only approach it is not very transparent to use. But I personally
prefer hierarchical structures myself, so I maybe biased.
I do not think it is so much better for an interim solution as Google
Groups.

> * I do not favour adopting MediaWiki, mainly because TW’s wiki syntax is
> confusing enough without burdening authors with an additional syntax
> (people will long memories will recall that tiddlywiki.org was based on
> mediawiki in 2008/9)

I checked MediaWiki out of curiosity and syntax is different enough to
get frustrated. :) Also one could use MediaWiki, but it feel wrong to
use a different wiki for our wiki....

My 2 cents.

Ákos, who is getting the cold too...

Mark S.

unread,
Dec 10, 2016, 2:05:06 PM12/10/16
to TiddlyWiki, ak...@szederjei.eu

This seems to be a common thought, but there is a bit of a disconnect. TiddlyWiki is a single-user application not made for concurrent activities. MediaWiki was made for mult-user collaborative work.

Just because they share the word "wiki" doesn't mean they can both be used for the same job! A Mac truck and a Ford Escort are both vehicles, but you wouldn't use the Escort to carry 10 tons of oranges to market and you wouldn't use the Mac to shop at the mall.

Projects like WikiPedia have tens of thousands of contributors, so I'm sure it can't be that difficult to navigate. I'm absolutely sure it is easier than Git-Hub.

Mark

Ákos Szederjei

unread,
Dec 10, 2016, 2:17:01 PM12/10/16
to tiddl...@googlegroups.com
Principally, I am not against MW. Having 24 hours in a day, I simply
have no time to learn it's syntax. But this is my priority and if others
go for it, it is fine.

If potential Mac truck users can only reach the Mac truck user manual
with a Ford Escort, it does raise the question why not use an Ford Escort?
I am not talking about MW vs TW, just pointing out that despite their
different user case, which most people won't even know about, is not
exactly a good advertisement.

As written above, my musings are just pointers with good intentions. As
my contributions are limited, those who will use the new system should
feel home in it, not me.

Ákos

Mat

unread,
Dec 11, 2016, 2:56:36 PM12/11/16
to TiddlyWiki
Jeremy wrote

Ultimately and ideally, we should base TiddlyWiki documentation efforts on TiddlyWiki itself


Agree 100% and - (talking to everybody now.) - this is why I'm against distracting interim solutions or parallel solutions of other kinds. ANY other system would mean people would have to e.g register for yet another thing, learn new UI's and more lingo and it would scatter and fragment the docs and info (or repeat it) and I strongly fear this would split the community and be confusing. If the idea is to ultimately have TW be sufficient in itself, then... why shouldn't we just focus on creating that!?

The big problem is that "we creating that" is, implementation-wise, limited to very few knowledgeable individuals. However, the first step is still to define how we (all) would like for it to function. So maybe that's the best start? This makes sense even if you insist on some non-TW solution - i.e defining what a system should fulfill and what it should feature.


The solution is simple: switch to using TiddlyWiki in a server-based configuration, but you lose the offline capability.  [...] federation on the server under Node.js, where the technical difficulties melt away. That’s how the threaded discussion on http://tiddlywiki.com/tiddlywiki-eu-meetup-2016/ was built; the result is a simple HTML file that downloads swiftly.
 
None of the alternative solutions (github, mediawiki, reddit, discourse, etc) work offline either AFAICT ..but, with a server-based TW one could (as pointed out) download the result and probably have it integrate well with ones own TW if that is desired.

@Jeremy - would it not be possible with a symbiotic solution including both a server-based node.js configuration and the vanilla version? Those inclined could host server based solutions used as exchange hubs for e.g documentation to/from which others could "post" or download documentation.

"Posting" would, perhaps, be done in a workflow similar to how the TWederation experiments are approaching it; Server-wikis would, from wikis they're following, fetch specified tiddlers (e.g tiddlers tagged "docs"). Because "Docs" is of interest to many people, it is likely to be redundantly hosted by multiple server wikis, thus protecting accessibility.

Not thought through: but how about a twitteresque system with UUIDs as hashtags (with potential aliases) for original issues and replies/whatever to such issues can be tagged with these UUIDs to associate it with the original issue. 

<:-)

Josiah

unread,
Dec 12, 2016, 7:49:11 AM12/12/16
to TiddlyWiki
Ciao Mat

I'd like to reply to this bit-by-bit ...


Mat wrote:

 I'm against distracting interim solutions or parallel solutions of other kinds. ANY other system would mean people would have to e.g register for yet another thing, learn new UI's and more lingo and it would scatter and fragment the docs and info (or repeat it) and I strongly fear this would split the community and be confusing.

I agree AND disagree.

I AGREE that interim solutions that are not in a core central solution add to fragmentation.

I guess the question is whether fragmentation is worth the upsides that better ways of helping people NOW help enough. Its a trade-off and one worth considering.

I DISAGREE mainly about TIMING (hence the NOW, above). This thread, perhaps more than many previous on documentation issues, is closer to a clearer consensual outcome than any before. I love what you guys are doing with TWED. But, as you say, you are small in number and many, many issues needs to be sorted AND implemented. Do you have the time? When will it happen? THAT should be a factor in this. Because otherwise we are just gonna go round this loop again in a few months.

Best wishes
Josiah

Josiah

unread,
Dec 12, 2016, 8:25:31 AM12/12/16
to TiddlyWiki
Ciao Mat & all

In the space of a short time Riz, a guy who likes to do, has created a Reddit for TW5 that has discussion (http://tinyurl.com/h884qlj) that has six resource libraries (http://tinyurl.com/zmuplqp), that is developing a post labelling system based on tiddlywiki.com tags so you can find things.

It looks like its answering needs.

Take a look and ask yourself whether Google Groups, which is what we have, is anywhere near as good a format?

Call it "fragmentation" if you want. In a way it is. But so would be any innovation.

Personally I want to congratulate him. And, lacking any other solution right now, say yes. Its pretty damn good.

IF he continues with it he will need co-moderators to help it be sustainable.

Best wishes
Josiah

Josiah

unread,
Dec 12, 2016, 8:37:41 AM12/12/16
to TiddlyWiki
Ciao Mat & all

A footnote on Google Groups ...

I'm not sure if everyone is aware that Google Groups does support TAGS. The moderator has to create them. And, as far as I understand it, you have have apply at least one when you post. I'm unclear how that works with people who work through email. Maybe it doesn't?

Its worth noting a MAJOR theme is the discussion was we are losing valuable documentation all the time by not having an organised way to look at past threads. TAGs might help, at least as an interim.

Best wishes
Josiah

Josiah

unread,
Dec 12, 2016, 8:58:27 AM12/12/16
to TiddlyWiki
Ciao Mat

On most things I know jack-shit. On Twitter I know what I am talking about. The Twitter UUID system is elegant & minimalist. Its final result is best viewed in Tweetdeck rather than vanilla Twitter. Tweetdeck makes best use of it. The threading system that depends on the UUID is excellent in the way its implemented. Its user focused, meaning the entry point in the thread you view is at the point you commented. You can navigate & branch anyway you want from there.

I think its an excellent model to look at in the context of TWED.

Best wishes
Josiah

Mat wrote:
... how about a twitteresque system with UUIDs as hashtags (with potential aliases) for original issues and replies/whatever to such issues can be tagged with these UUIDs to associate it with the original issue.

Mat

unread,
Dec 12, 2016, 12:33:24 PM12/12/16
to TiddlyWiki
Josiah wrote:

In the space of a short time Riz, a guy who likes to do, has created a Reddit for TW5 that has discussion (http://tinyurl.com/h884qlj)

Riz is doing great stuff! (Thanks Riz!) 

So, if I understand, Reddit is a substitute for the boards but with "voting" on answers, right?


IF he continues with it he will need co-moderators to help it be sustainable.

Yeah.. no small task! 

<:-)

Josiah

unread,
Dec 12, 2016, 12:49:51 PM12/12/16
to TiddlyWiki
It has up-voting. It has tagging (not sure if only moderators can do that?). It has any number of supplemental wikis needed.

Riz

unread,
Dec 12, 2016, 1:06:17 PM12/12/16
to TiddlyWiki


Riz is doing great stuff! (Thanks Riz!) 

So, if I understand, Reddit is a substitute for the boards but with "voting" on answers, right?


My pleasure.

Reddit is more than that. Leaving aside my bias because reddit is an open-source undertaking, it has more features that meets the eye.

1. As Josiah mentioned, it has an inbuilt wiki which any approved submitter can edit. I plan to add major posts of the week on sundays for easy reference later.
2. Again, as Josiah mentioned - it has tagging. User can choose to view just the tagged posts by clicking on a tag. This is in addition to the default views in which user can sort the posts by most upvoted of all-time/last year/last month/last 24 hours, latest, hot and so on.
3. Auto-moderation. Even if a user forgets to tag, we can set it such that tags will be added automatically based on keywords. Same kind of rules can be defined to many other purposes - including sending a welcome message to a someone who posts/comments in the group for the first to make him feel welcome or posting weekiy posts. Eg: Our feel free friday is an automated post.
4. Reddit is a social network beyond all. If our community grows and one of our posts reaches a certain amount of posts - that post will be featured in the reddit front page. Reddit is a website with nearly one million unique hits (based on askreddit threads alone) and five times that amount page views - imagine being featured in the front-page of such a site.
5. Last but not least - reddit is more structured, you can filter out contents you do not like even within a subreddit and so on. Yeah, there is voting system to indicate the helpfulness of a post too -which doesn't hurt either.

Tobias Beer

unread,
Dec 12, 2016, 1:49:28 PM12/12/16
to TiddlyWiki
Hi Josiah,
 
Its worth noting a MAJOR theme is the discussion was we are losing valuable documentation all the time by not having an organised way to look at past threads. TAGs might help, at least as an interim.

Please keep in mind that discussing a subject matter and responding with answers to highly specific requests is not at all the same as "documentation". From what I see, reddit does not provide a knowledge base, whereas TiddlyWiki.com very well has a splash of that.

I think it is crucial for documentation to be curated, not just accrued. You can argue that there's a learning curve to both contributing as well as a latency to updates to tiddlywiki.com, but I would argue the quality and consistency that brings are very much of need. A more or less lose community built around another platform will quickly evolve into something that may or may not actually be so much about TiddlyWiki.

You see, Google groups does one thing and it does that good: provide a platform for timely discussion. That is its purpose and it fulfills it. To me, extracting documentation for presentation and consumption elsewhere is an entirely different, ideally curated process.

Best wishes,

Tobias.

Josiah

unread,
Dec 16, 2016, 1:56:50 PM12/16/16
to tiddl...@googlegroups.com
Ciao Tobias

Sorry for the delay. I been busy. I wish I had replied before because this thread looks like its gone "off the boil". Which, from my point of view, is unfortunate.

Like many of the other posts in this discussion I find myself both agreeing & disagreeing .

I AGREE with you on TWO core things ...

  1 - Some of the best DOCUMENTATION is written or curated by people dedicated to that task, not mixed up with anything else. YOUR work is an outstanding example of that. In no way do I want to detract from that fact.

  2 - Google Groups as an ongoing DISCUSSION FORUM is as good as any other. The fact it supports both web & email, & that it is reliable, gives it a real "bedrock".

Where I DIFFER somewhat is as follows ...

   A -  Google Groups loses its own history constantly. Its best at transient knowledge, very good for the thread at hand. Then, basically, its past.

  B - Multiple forums across the net instantiate what I should probably properly call "proto-documentation", rather than "Documentation" with a big "D". But not here. This type of documentation is accessible ONLY where there is ORGANISATION for longevity.

        To give an example from THIS group where GG fails badly. TWEDERATION orientation & documentation exists as much in the Google Group archive as it does on TW sites. And BOTH of them are REFRACTORY TO FINDING because the way GG works makes it extremely cumbersome. Even if you KNOW to look for them. Which you WON'T unless you have been reading everything. That goes for BOTH the docu-discussion AND the site addresses for the plugin. Pinning & Tagging would better enable that. A supplementary wiki on critical developments directly connected to such threads even more so.

  C - What Riz has been doing on Reddit, just as one person with limited technical scope & time, has really impressed upon me that we could be doing MUCH BETTER. That is a lot to do with Reddit having searchable tagging of posts, & posters. AND supplementary wikis built in.

       That is NOT so unusual. What is unusual is we persist with GG even though its CHOPPING OFF emergent directions everyday because it has NO interest in valuing history.

All this is perhaps not about "documentation" in the stricter sense you meant it. But,  from a practical point of view its still highly relevant.

Best wishes
Josiah

Arlen Beiler

unread,
Dec 16, 2016, 2:47:51 PM12/16/16
to TiddlyWiki
I would like to propose using WikiBooks. I think it is suited for documentation of this kind. We could have a community area on there, and we could make use of some bots and scripts which turn the static text pages of the Wikimedia system into a dynamic, automated system of notifications, discussions, and feeds. 

It is work, yes, but if we have enough MediaWiki editors on here, we could give it a go. For those who don't want to learn the syntax, that's fine. I would think we could make a TW <-> MW syntax comparison sheet to ease the headache, as well. But there are probably quite a few people here who know both. 

That being said, what??? is preventing us from making it multi-user? :)

-Arlen

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TiddlyWiki" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to tiddlywiki+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to tiddl...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/tiddlywiki.

Tobias Beer

unread,
Dec 17, 2016, 2:02:19 AM12/17/16
to TiddlyWiki
Hi Josiah,

You brought up TWEderation as an example for let's say "more scattered" information than you'd like that somehow doesn't organize nearly as good as you wish and where you believe reddit could provide a better environment to more efficiently bring the lose pieces together.

The first point I would make is that TWEderation is a community effort (one which I have hardly been involved in due to a new job I've been working for the better part of this year now, sry about that, Jed & Mat). However, much more so than for the TiddlyWiki core, if you have something emerge out of a community effort, of course you'll be looking at a highly organic project with goals and ideas being addressed and discussed and tested that perhaps feel a bit like moving goalposts and so you may find it difficult to get to the bottom of it or whatever you try to do with it or find out.

However, I would not project this kind of project-/-plugin-motivated effort onto the TiddlyWiki project as the underlying foundation, even though the core may as well present a wide range of topics that beg addressing and leave you on a quest to figuring out the right entry point to get things moving or just be able to simply "use" something, you know, do as others did.

Although perhaps cumbersome, the process to contribute to improving the core documentation is quite established, from my point of view... while sure leaving room for improvement here and there.

Sure, bringing community documentation together and wrapping all that up in a more unified searchable tagable folksonomy is an entirely different thing. So, perhaps, with all the efforts on (that) reddit, perhaps the best focus for it would be to establishing a kind of "knowledge-base" that does not itself hold the information you're looking for, but only abstracts for it, but mostly providing an environment for gathering pointers... to all the bits of information out there that may help you answer a question or achieve a goal... while leaving lengthy, at times philosophical ponderings as well as "please help me" requests in the groups and efforts for a solid core documentation to the more github oriented workflow.

So, from a practical point of view, maybe we should discuss separation of concerns rather than try to figure out the best environment for everything.

Google Groups: whatever you want to discuss (in context)
TiddlyWiki on GitHub: if you wish to improve the core (docs)
Reddit: if you wish to tie otherwise lose ends together in terms of bits of information pointing elsewhere

maybe even a dedicated...

StackOverflow: for figuring things out regarding the core, plugins, themes from a developer / designer point of view

...something along these lines.

Best wishes,

Tobias.

Jeremy Ruston

unread,
Dec 17, 2016, 9:43:27 AM12/17/16
to tiddl...@googlegroups.com
Many thanks for the interesting discussion. Just a few points relating to recent posts:

* The Reddit experiment looks pretty promising, and I’d welcome other opinions as to its suitability to replace Google Groups for casual discussion (or indeed as a way of gathering links for the front page of tw.com)
* As Tobias points out, post-Google Groups, StackOverflow might be a natural place for developer Q&A that doesn’t fit GitHub

I should emphasise again that I’m aware that the slow update cycle for tiddlywiki.com is a significant hold up to making improvements, and hope to pay attention to the problem in 2017,

Best wishes

Jeremy.


--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TiddlyWiki" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to tiddlywiki+...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to tiddl...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/tiddlywiki.

Marica Odagaki

unread,
Dec 17, 2016, 10:40:08 PM12/17/16
to TiddlyWiki
Re: StackOverflow..

I don't know if Tobias originally meant this with "dedicated" (though guessing yes), but it's possible to create a whole new StackOverflow-style Q&A site under the stackexchange.com domain: something like http://tiddlywiki.stackexchange.com/, if we go through a multi-phase proposal and acceptance process.

Proposal example: http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/86758/django-cms
Q&A site example: http://drupal.stackexchange.com/

Benefits over stackoverflow.com:
- We can build up a tagging taxonomy within the context of TiddlyWiki
- We can welcome non-coding questions as well as coding questions

Benefits of a StackOverflow-style Q&A site in general:
- The most useful answer is shown at the top, which isn't the case with Google Groups; past Q&As can serve as a useful resource for future visitors
- Comes with moderation tooling like closing as off-topic, voting to indicate usefulness of questions and answers, and ability to mark an answer as "correct" / "helpful"
- Tags can each have an associated documentation page (not to say it should be the home of documentation of all things TiddlyWiki)
- Comes with real-time chat rooms

I believe this won't be a good place for announcements of new plugins and such; Reddit or Google Groups seem more suitable as a place for content bound to a specific time.

In any case, if there's interest, we can make it happen. The process involves defining the scope of the site (this seems straightforward), and having at least two hundred people sign up and say "I commit to be active in this site" (there's a bit more to the acceptance criteria though).

(Personal context: I've been using TiddlyWiki5 as my personal notebook for a while now, and I've been active on some of the StackExchange network sites)

Cheers,
Marica

Josiah

unread,
Dec 19, 2016, 5:12:14 AM12/19/16
to TiddlyWiki
Please note that some issues relevant to this discussion are now also happening in the TidlyWikiDev channel ...  http://tinyurl.com/goswe9c

Eneko Gotzon

unread,
Dec 19, 2016, 7:47:53 AM12/19/16
to tiddl...@googlegroups.com

On Mon, Dec 19, 2016 at 11:12 AM, Josiah <prog...@assays.tv> wrote:
TidlyWikiDev channel

Knowing the user channel the dev one must be plenty of Nobels…​

--
Eneko Gotzon Ares
eneko...@gmail.com

Josiah

unread,
Dec 19, 2016, 8:36:13 AM12/19/16
to TiddlyWiki
Lol,

Whilst this list is pretty advanced Computerse-English, the Nobel Dev version is Swahili to me :-)

Josiah

Dmitry Sokolov

unread,
Dec 20, 2016, 3:47:19 AM12/20/16
to TiddlyWiki
Hi Josiah,
I am new to TW but have intent to develop it into "P2P Collective Intelligence" platform. The major purpose of P2PCI is to have any topics of interest found or discovered "in real-time" for reuse.
"Real-time" means 20-30 seconds per any particular topic is demonstrated/measured, that is 2-3 times slower than a theoretical limit.
I started putting together "the documentation" with the "core node" probably here:
http://confocal-manawatu.pbworks.com/w/page/114001012/TiddlyWiki%20Best%20Practices
The "documentation" is JUST STARTED. However, you may have an idea how it will look like in future by browsing around:
- click "Taxonomy Path" to see the place of any particular page in the LikeInMind Taxonomy.
- click "Visual Taxonomy" link to see the Taxonomy graph being built on DebateGraph website.
- feel free to explore the pages by clicking the other links in the pages.
That will give you an idea how information is organised on LikeInMind and how it can be reliably discovered.

Let me talk about advanced "real-time" search techniques later. That is a big topic on it's own.
Later, we should also talk about the "Death of the Document", place of browsing vs search of particular topics, publishing on forums vs QA sites vs "knowledge networks", etc.

Thank you for your interest,
Dmitry

wimm

unread,
Dec 21, 2016, 1:36:59 AM12/21/16
to tiddl...@googlegroups.com

another source to search the tiddlywiki googlegroups with more serach options:


from their docucumentation:

fancy boolean operators like + - AND OR NOT ().

Finally, searches can be limited to a particular email field such as fromdatesubject or message

For example, one can find all messages from April 2002. 

The sort order can be controlled by adding sort:newest or sort:oldest to your search string.

  • "battle royale" +Jeff -Breidenbach -Marshall
  • (dualing OR dueling) AND banjos 
  • from:"Mac Oglesby" date:[19980101 TO 19981231] Breidenbach date:200204*
  • help sort:newest
            https://www.mail-archive.com/searching.html (which also describes wild cards)

            keyboard shortcuts

            Access keyMnemonicAction
            Alt-nNextLater message by thread
            Alt-pPreviousEarlier message by thread
            Alt-fForwardLater message by date
            Alt-bBackEarlier message by date
            Alt-iIndexChronological index
            Alt-cContentsThread index




            wimm

            Josiah

            unread,
            Dec 21, 2016, 9:06:23 AM12/21/16
            to TiddlyWiki
            Ciao Wimm & all

            That is very useful! The search in it produces more meaningful results than naked Google Groups does.

            Search This Google Group ... Friendly Style

            Thank you.

            It raises the point of, until there is greater clarity of the way to go to a better system, we could be getting MORE out of Goggle Groups than we are.

            Best wishes
            Josiah

            Rustem

            unread,
            Dec 22, 2016, 8:05:35 AM12/22/16
            to TiddlyWiki
            +1 for stackexchange sub-domain. Would work really well for knowledge accumulation. Would we be able to have the Documentation (beta) feature on it as well?

            Arlen Beiler

            unread,
            Dec 22, 2016, 12:04:29 PM12/22/16
            to TiddlyWiki
            Toward this end I've created a proposal for a new StackExchange


            and a WikiProject to collaborate on TiddlyWiki-related WikiBooks


            See my thread StackExchange Tiddlywiki for more info about the Stack Exchange proposal. And in case you are wondering, Stack Overflow is part of the Stack Exchange network, and it's all run by the same company.

            Feel free to stop by the Wikibooks page and check it out, and if you are familiar with Wikibooks, feel free to jump in. 

            --
            You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TiddlyWiki" group.
            To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to tiddlywiki+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

            To post to this group, send email to tiddl...@googlegroups.com.
            Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/tiddlywiki.

            Arlen Beiler

            unread,
            Dec 22, 2016, 2:39:02 PM12/22/16
            to TiddlyWiki
            The thing about the Wikibook is that we will need to decide how to get content over and so on. Discussions can happen there or here, but this is not as pressing or easy to implement as the StackExchange part.

            Josiah

            unread,
            Dec 23, 2016, 1:01:02 PM12/23/16
            to TiddlyWiki
            Ciao Tobias for the detailed reply.

            We are NOT at odds. Though probably talking about slightly different things.

            To make it clear I was, and am, centrally focussed on the poor, poor nature of Google Groups. Its simplicity as a threaded discussion group is good. After that everything about it is Crap 101. I feel it needs to change. I'm not alone in that.

            Practically speaking I got a brilliant answer inspired by a Reddit post that I wrote that solved a long term issue I have had over how to URL post properly URI encoded Tiddlers that Telmiger (http://tinyurl.com/zp3cc5s) answered with a working solution. The Google version is here: http://tinyurl.com/hwy99v4 though the unfoldment was on Reddit & Twitter. That is saying something. I tried here in this GG and failed in the past.

            To be clear "documentation" is multi-facted, as you say. But if the most used system is a mess then its NOT good for anything. I content that Google Group is awful for anything other than fleeting messages.

            Best wishes
            Josiah

            Birthe C

            unread,
            Dec 23, 2016, 3:32:43 PM12/23/16
            to TiddlyWiki
            My big question is: Are you planning to end this Google group? I like it for its simplicity. I do undertand that a lot of you here are very familiar with a lot of other possibilities but admit that I am just getting more and more confused.

            I find a lot of inspiration in reading about other peoples work with tiddlywiki from day to day. In fact I would not be much of a tiddlywiki user without it. I am a reuser with some small twists ;-)

            Also my biggest problem  with searching is my bad english.


            Birthe

            Josiah

            unread,
            Dec 23, 2016, 4:16:16 PM12/23/16
            to TiddlyWiki
            Ciao Birthe C

            It IS confusing. But I doubt there will be any change without a clear transfer process. As it is absolutely nothing has been settled on yet. So don't worry.

            These periodic discussions do often, rightly, focus on the limitations of here. That does NOT mean this group is suddenly gonna disappear. If anything it will continue as is, despite its problems.

            Best wishes
            Josiah

            Dmitry Sokolov

            unread,
            Dec 23, 2016, 9:36:33 PM12/23/16
            to tiddl...@googlegroups.com
            Dear Arlen, Josiah and Birthe,
            you are touching the topic of my ongoing interest for a few years, "Findability and Discoverability for Reuse" in Transmedia environment:
            http://confocal-manawatu.pbworks.com/w/page/104941506/Transmedia
            In other words, I study how to bring "experts" and "learners" literally "on the same page" where all relevant knowledge and information is collected and arrange for immediate reuse, and how to ensure each particular "page" found or discovered in "real-time", i.e. as quick as a few seconds.

            Different media serve different purposes:
            - books are great for putting together well known materials and facts, for systematic learning
            - forums like this are great for sharing ideas with large number of participants
            - messengers are good for real-time "relaxed" communication
            - voice and video chats (HangOuts, for example) are used when things require immediate action
            but none of them are made convenient for finding / discovering information (for future reuse).

            From my experience, for the purpose of (real-time) reuse, any particular chunk of information or knowledge can be
            • found only when it is given a "human-readable name", i.e. a "Topic Title"
            • discovered only when it is interconnected with relevant and related concepts,
              • "horizontally" into the "knowledge network"
              • "vertically" into a "taxonomy", where every level of Taxonomy represents higher and lower degree of "focusing" into "semantic areas", either in more details and specific, or of wider scope and generic
            I experiment with building "knowledge networks" on PBWorks, quite successfully. However, my anticipation is that TWederation will be even more suitable for the job. To my understanding, TWederation is aiming same goals the Distributed Web is trying to achieve:
            http://confocal-manawatu.pbworks.com/w/page/114061573/IPFS%20is%20the%20Distributed%20Web

            Currently, I am looking for the opportunity to shift to this kind of "P2P Web" environment, as soon as secure and reliable versioning and multi-user editing realised.
            I am curating a student who knows HTML, CSS and JS and selected TiddlyWiki for his summer project. It would be great if we could develop it into really successful one, with your help.

            I am looking forward to your suggestions and support.

            Thank you beforehand,
            Dmitry
            P.S. Please feel free to browse and explore both Visual Taxonomy and "knowledge networks" by clicking links and images in the header and body of the pages.

            Dmitry Sokolov

            unread,
            Dec 23, 2016, 10:38:19 PM12/23/16
            to TiddlyWiki
            ... student is on summer holidays. Therefore the summer project.

            Merry Christmas from New Zealand!

            It's getting pretty hot here... :)

            Arlen Beiler

            unread,
            Dec 26, 2016, 5:46:56 PM12/26/16
            to TiddlyWiki
            A StackExchange site will not replace the Google Group, it will only take out many of the questions that are asking how to do stuff in TiddlyWiki. And you can keep tabs on the questions that get asked fairly easily. For instance, here is all the TiddlyWiki questions on StackOverflow. http://stackoverflow.com/questions/tagged/tiddlywiki

            And here is a link to the proposal again for ease of access :)


            Enjoy
            -Arlen

            --
            You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TiddlyWiki" group.
            To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to tiddlywiki+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
            To post to this group, send email to tiddl...@googlegroups.com.
            Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/tiddlywiki.

            Dmitry Sokolov

            unread,
            Dec 27, 2016, 12:52:26 AM12/27/16
            to TiddlyWiki
            Thank you Arlen,

            The link on TiddlyWiki on StackOverflow is added to the TiddlyWiki Resources list:
            http://confocal-manawatu.pbworks.com/w/page/113792623/TiddlyWiki%20Forums

            My concerns:
            • TW on SO looks not very popular
            • our activities will be scattered between the platforms
              • an environment linking all the bits and pieces similar to LikeInMind will be required, to have all knowledge reliably found, discovered and retrieved

            Your thoughts?


            Cheers,

            Dmitry

            To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to tiddlywiki+...@googlegroups.com.

            To post to this group, send email to tiddl...@googlegroups.com.
            Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/tiddlywiki.
            It is loading more messages.
            0 new messages