No! I Will NOT set up a Wiki!

You know what, Internets? You had your chance at something good? You really did. The concept of setting up a Wiki could have been a wonderful golden opportunity. Let us go how you guys screwed up.

First off... MediaWiki. which has been made the defacto software and layout design... is an abhorrent web design. Look on any Media Wiki page set up. Ask yourself, where is that damned carrot? Where do you click to get what you want? Typically, most Wiki layouts based on MediaWiki have way too many garbage links that 90% of the audience viewing the website is never going to click. Nor are they ever going to care that these functionalities exist.

How about this? You have the search at the top of the page. A few important links att the top, or in the side bar... then, get this... the article itself. Kind of silly. Oh! And then, all those other links that exist for maintainer purposes? That pretty much only the admins and editors should care about? Oh--this will be really killed... put those as Footer Links. Hilarious that people would think that a simplified design, ala Apple or Google would be a good idea for laying out content.

Okay, next, we have this layout, that does not make me want to punch babies more than I normally want to do (what? Some girls eat ice cream when upset, I punch babies. And just like some girls do not need to be upset to eat ice cream...).

What else has screwed up? Well--typically that bloody retarded Wiki Markup. Look, myself, I have gone through the effort to learn DTD, XQuery, XPath, DOM2, DOM3, XBI2, XUL, xhtml2, xhtml11, HTML401, HTML5, CSS2, CSS3, Postscript, POD and countless other ways to describe a page's copy and the layout of said copy. While it is always nice to know basic Wiki markup give a bloody dammed WYSIWYG editor for wiki editing! I mean, Google Sites, Blogger, Wordpress, Tumblr, and countless millions of other pieces of web software provide WYSIWYG editing for adding entries. Why the hell is it that most wikis are so bleeding far behind on providing this.

I am a person, who will bust out Vim, and hardcode a website, just to get its layout right. However, if I am working with the copy of said website--that is the content, I have gotten to the point that I really do not care if I am using a WYSIWYG editor... in fact... I kind of prefer it. And you know what? This lack of desire to learn 9001 different markups to present a page's content (including several dialects of Wiki that only vaguely work with each other, BBCode with several dialecs of that, Basic-HTML, HTML401, HTML5, xhtml11, xhtml5, SVG, etc., etc., etc..) is the main reason you still find people with copies of Microsoft Frontpage. A product that gets people working at Microsoft itself want to commit Hari Kari over the fact they made it. This is part of why Microsoft is considering relocating to the British Ilse--the ban on knifes there, will pretty much remove employee loss due to these reasons.

I mean, okay, I agree, that there have been some dastardly horrid WYSI(not)WYG products out there. The thing is, you are NOT presenting a website to make Van Gogh able to stop haunting the hills of Northern California and rest in peace as a forever happy soul. You are presenting out the copy, that is content, to give that website designed to allow Van Gogh to rest in peace a reason to be visited. Which since most of what you will be posting is links, bold, italics, headlines and images, there really is not that much cause NOT to have a WYSIWYG editor of sorts.

Okay--so we get onto why Wikis are so nice. The communities that use them.

You know, you should possibly make arguments that are at least convincing in how they sound.

You get three people who make use of wikis: spam bots, power hungry admins and people who just complain.

Spam bots will just go into a wiki, and submit a random article (or article edit), with links to some other site, that they are trying to lower the ranking of in Google. As comment spam, is a form of vandalism, not meant to sell any thing.

Next you get people who complain. These people will take the time out of their life to post templates saying that this article has a fair amount of spelling or style issues. OR they will go to the diccussion section, and say, "this needs to be fixed to this." This is usually followed by several others also agreeing in the discussion section. As they seem to know HOW to comment it needs to be fixed, and they know HOW to mark an article for deletion... but they are completely puzzle at how to edit that section AND BLOODY FIX IT THEMSELVES LIKE YOU ARE SUPPOSE TO BE ABLE TO DO ON A WIKI!

Was not that the bloody number 1 selling point on a Wiki? That if something is wrong, you can go in and fix it your bloody self?! How is it that nobody ever does this?

Oh right--the power tripping admins. These, from what I have seen, are pretty much just the newer version of the power tripping MUD,MUCK.MOO,MOSH,MUSH,etc. admins of yesteryear. Either their dick is too small to do this crap in real life, so they do it from behind a computer screen.

Even better is now, you do not even have to know the subject matter at hand to be an Admin or Staff of a Wiki. Wikipedia themselves are known to be the bloody worse for hiring staff or admins that are not even barely qualified for the sections they are involved in.

I mean--okay... it is nice and wonderful that we have these totalitarian Admins of these sites--but you'd kind of hope they would know their crap.

At this point, any of the functionality of the selling points of the Wikis are gone. You may as well just have the Admins put up their own blogger entry, where they rant and rave about crap nobody likely cares about. With people to comment on changes.

The only difference is the Admins would have to at least offer some content of their own. Rather than just have random strangers get put into their weird and amalgamated mixture of wiki facts.

Yeah--I did just put this blog as better than Wikipedia. And no, that is not a compliment for this blog.

Personally, whenever somebody says that Wikipedia has been shown to be 90% accurate (and more accurate than Encyclopedia Britannica), I kind of have to ask, what body is in charge of measuring this, and why they have not bothered to put out their own encyclopedia that is 100%?

Further saying that this is the internet. Facts do not exist in any form. At most we can get is commonly agreed upon heresy and opinion.

A website is the opinions of its authors. This should be assumed by logging onto the internet.