From WikiIndex
Jump to: navigation, search

Is there a reason we're calling him Howard instead of Ward, that he uses? TedErnst | talk 16:18, 25 Jan 2006 (EST)

"Howard" is his legal name. "Ward" is the name that people on WikiWikiWeb usually use.

Okay, so why are we using Howard when the whole world knows him as Ward? TedErnst | talk 16:56, 25 Jan 2006 (EST)

Because it is more formal.

And why is that a good thing? TedErnst | talk 17:13, 25 Jan 2006 (EST)

Yes, what is so wrong with using PlainTalk words and names that are easy to understand? --DavidCary 14:55, 3 July 2010 (EDT)


I suggest merging the WikiWikiWeb article into the Portland Pattern Repository article. Both of them are about the same wiki -- the first wiki, the wiki that WardCunningham started, right? --DavidCary 14:58, 3 July 2010 (EDT)

Seems reasonable, although I'd have Portland Pattern Repository redirect to this article, as it is currently and probably best known as WikiWikiWeb. --MarvelZuvembie 20:17, 3 July 2010 (EDT)
I now found another Page PortlandPatternRepository. I checked the URLs and it seems that WikiWikiWeb and PPR are indeed different wikis. Maybe the WikiWikiWeb was a child of the PPR, started as they discovered that there is more than patterns to be done by using this new technology? It seems that the PPR was the first wiki (without beeing named "wiki"). The best would be to ask Ward for the facts. Here some illustrating Links
Best regards --Wolf | talk 03:59, 5 July 2010 (EDT)

As far as I understand, PortlandPatternRepository is the first wiki and was nicknamed the WikiWikiWeb. Will double check with WardCunningham Best, MarkDilley 5 July 2010

Hi Mark, thank you in advance for doing that! I read on, that the space named as "wiki" was created for exploring the not-quite-yet patterns we all carry around in our heads... :-) It seems to me that they discovered what wiki really could be after using it for a while for pattern collectiong. And, I'm very interested in Ward's answer. --Wolf | talk 16:07, 5 July 2010 (EDT)

So, what did Mark find out since 2010?

As I see it, Portland Pattern Repository is an archive. No chance to edit. No new edits in this millennium. ((It might really been the first wiki ever)).--Manorainjan (talk) 10:50, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

This seems not to be the full truth: this wiki was dedicated to a specific problem. Maybe you can read something about it in the artima article Exploring with Wiki. The wiki idea evolved since this first(!) successful approach; even today it's possible to contribute to this old wiki (if you meet their topic(s) and style).
Best --Wolf | talk 10:19, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
Only now I see that you are talking about Portland Pattern Repository not WikiWikiWeb. I know that it was hard to distinguish these both wikis (or was it only one)?...
I think one of them could get the goal reached status... Best --Wolf | talk 11:46, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

The PPP is not a wiki I think. Repository means a place to store something. It is more a collection of what came out of Wards Wiki, the result of refactoring, an essence of the result until Jun 4, 1996. After this date refactoring seems to be thought of going on the wiki itself because the wiki way was experienced and trusted by then. Technically PPP is different. The pages there end on *.HTML, Links are different and so on. Wards website has the same minimalistic look and feel as PPP and wiki have. Therefore they can easily be confused. PPP may retain its own page on WikiIndex for historical purpose but should clearly be marked as not being a wiki. I see it more as an intellectual backup of most of the good on Wiki from start to 1996. Manorainjan (talk) 11:57, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, you are right: PPR seems to be an archive. Categorizing it with not a wiki (here in WikiIndex) seems right, but simply doing so could cause problems... --Wolf | talk 12:13, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

I turned it into a simple page.Manorainjan (talk) 12:40, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Resources for use with this wiki[edit]

There is a script to be run by wp:Greasemonkey which is mentioned on MoreAboutCodes with an outdated link:

// ==UserScript==
// @name        C2 Wiki – Fill In Code Word When Editing
// @namespace
// @description Automatically fills in the code word (CAPTCHA) “567” on the edit page of the C2 wiki, WikiWikiWeb.
// @include*
// @version     1
// @grant       none
// ==/UserScript==

// "Type the code word, 567, here [...]"
var textField = document.getElementsByName("code")[0];
var codeWord = "567"; // hard-coded; I’ve never personally seen it be anything else.
textField.value = codeWord;

Archived: File:Source for C2 Wiki – Fill In Code Word When Editing Userscripts.pdf

What was Wards last edit in C2?[edit]

I'm not sure how you're determining "his last edit", because there have certainly been signed edits by Ward since 2005. See, for example (which I found by taking random stab at the History), which dates from June 10, 2010. (See for dates.) That trivially refutes your assertion. There are newer edits which may either have been signed and subsequently deleted as the content was refactored, or which were unsigned, and I'm sure others can be found in the History. Also, in keeping with the trend toward unsigned edits since roughly 2005, Ward didn't always sign his contributions. 12:18, 26 January 2015‎ (Talk)‎ (moved here from document page by Manorainjan)

  • This is rather a good example of Ward not editing his wiki.

As one can see on the list of the history pages of the system notice board of WikiWikiWeb on 11th May 2010 appearing on history page 880 one askes about the outage at 10th of May. They did not get any answer from Ward until a whole month later on 893 10th of June 2010:

We've had two unrelated server problems that have lead to the service interruptions noted above.

The operating system failed due to high process load caused by search engine bots getting caught up in old slow scripts that were not properly listed in robots.txt. Unfortunately some mis-communication with the co-location facility led to a reboot begin delayed until the following Monday morning.

QuickDiff was one of several scripts that were removed until a recently exploited vulnerability could be corrected. (I did so this morning.) I apologize for letting this chore drag on for so long and for not posting situation updates here promptly.

As always, I appreciate this community's willingness to carry on with the quirks of this historic, but aging site. -- WardCunningham

This proves three things:

  • Ward is responding to serious technical problems whenever the server is affected which is the same server his business homepage is hosted on.
  • He is likely to neglect the questions of the so called community about matters serious to them for quite a while.
  • He regarded this wiki to be 'historic' and 'ageing' defining it as a matter of the past from his perspective.

Therefore he did not contribute to this wiki any more. He only kept it up and running from a purely technical perspective of the one who has back-end access and the one who can remove scripts that proved causing server-problems.

In other words: Ward was forced to cripple the wiki by cutting off some scripts in order to secure the safe operation of the server his own business site was hosted on. He did not care to notify the public or the people assuming themselves to be the community of this antique wiki any further for about a month until obviously some people pestered him to say something. Then he did nothing until late 2014 when Dave Voorhis pestered him again via facebook. So he got fed up and finally locked down the wiki to ensure his own peace. He also did not care to notify the public about the lock-down until today. Manorainjan (talk) 13:54, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Is this your attempt at apologising for causing the vandalism that lead to the WikiWikiWeb being locked? If not, it should be.
Note that Ward is very busy, precisely because of the success of WikiWikiWeb and the Wiki movement he started. That's why he's slow to respond -- not because he's disinterested, but because he's busy, and he's busy because the WikiWikiWeb was successful.
You're absolutely right that Ward "got fed up". He got fed up with you. You vandalised the WikiWikiWeb, and that's why Ward closed it. Had you not vandalised it, it would almost certainly still be open. He could have closed it at any time, but he kept it open for us. He closed it because of you.
Rather than trying to put your own spin on the history of the WikiWikiWeb here, you should leave it alone, because you have done -- and by editing here, continue to do -- nothing but harm to it.
For that, you should be ashamed of yourself.
Obviously You still do not get it. Sure the Wiki was a success. But as sure it is history since quite some time before 2005. I did prove that point by making You making Ward lock it up, put it under glass so to say. You may remember me writing about dinosaurs and putting the wiki under glass when I still was editing the wiki. And I would not have bothered Ward personally because I was aware of the fact that he is busy with matters of more importance and first of all more up-to-dateness. Now Wards mind is surely relieved from the ongoing question "How is my old wiki doing?". His mind is free to work on current matters. Yours could be too, but You keep the attachment going. You insist on living in the past. You even started ThreadMode on the document page here, because "Your" old wiki does not have TalkPages attached to the regular pages.
Sure You de-facto got fired from the post of SharkMaster by locking the wiki. Now You are demoted to regular reader of the wiki like everybody else, certainly frustrating for You. But, what goes around, comes around. You invited that by hard-banning me. By misusing the power of the SharkBot You got that coming. Whatever Your lamenting will be, it is to late to be sorry. Manorainjan (talk) 16:05, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
You're like a juvenile delinquent who blames his teachers for making him throw a stone through a school window. Grow up!

Anonymous [in response to the assertion that Ward's last edit was in 2005]: * Untrue. See, for example, which is from Dec 03, 2012, as shown at There are many other examples.

Thank You for digging so deep in the dustbin of the wards wiki history! You surfaced another proof for my earlier claim. Ward wrote:
"I would be pleased if TopMind would take a year or two of vacation from this site. I would encourage others who see value in his technical contributions to neaten them up a little while he is gone. I doubt anyone would regret the removal of posts containing even a hint of flame bait, whether from top or anyone else. I have no intention of arguing this advice with top so not response is required. I know for sure that I feel this way and have felt so since top's arrival years ago." -- WardCunningham
As everyone can see who has eyes in his head, Ward reluctantly did a minimum-intervention on PatternsOfClaimsAgainstTop which is a collection of accusations, mostly by anonymous, that shows that so called community saw themselves unable to deal with the contributions "from the sheriffs office" and therefore cried out for the help to the God king. He refused to actively step in and expressed his desire not to be disturbed again within the next two years. Since he got disturbed again only two years later, he was fed up and locked down the wiki to ensure his peace. This again was only a maintenance note on account of external pressure. If he would not have responded at all, people would have called him irresponsible. But he did not take part in adding content. He even refused any active part in solving the "problem" of TopMind. Without any serious technical issue forcing him or any big upheaval in his kindergarten he was no showing up again on the remains of his "historic" wiki-experiment. Manorainjan (talk) 08:21, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Your assertion was that Ward's last edit was in 2005. Clearly, it isn't. The nature and content of the edit are irrelevant, and your comment only demonstrates your lack of understanding of the culture and mock-grumpy banter that is characteristic of the WikiWikiWeb.

  • The "mock-grumpy banter" is in no way a speciality of that wiki. I have seen this nearly everywhere in digital textual asynchronous communication in the last 25 years. Your assumption demonstrates a great lack of experience outside that wiki in general. Also it was characteristic if at all. There is no banter any more. The wiki is locked, the experiment is over. Manorainjan (talk) 09:13, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Of course, such banter is common. I didn't say otherwise. What I did say is that it is "characteristic of the WikiWikiWeb", much as it is characteristic of other wikis and fora in general. That you took such banter seriously, above, suggests that either it is you who "demonstrates a great lack of experience", or that your argument is dishonest because you tried to use it to make a point that you yourself don't agree with.

  • It is not Your call to rule what is irrelevant. The nature and content is relevant because Ward was the only one who had two or three roles: Creator, maintainer and contributor. Every one else was only contributor. No other person wrote the software or owned the domain or had the contract with the provider of. Therefore he was called God-king. Therefore the content and nature of his edits are to be distinguished and related to any of the roles. You should be extremely happy, that after silently dropping his role as a contributor he did not drop his role as a maintainer as well. Otherwise the wiki would have been locked like meatball since long or down like w²k. So You could play the one-eyed king and sharkmaster in the land of the blind ;-) Manorainjan (talk) 09:13, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

It is not "Your" call to rule that edits of Ward's are to be "distinguished and related to any of [his] roles". That's merely your awkward way of rationalising your vandalism to WikiWikiWeb based on your apparent argument that Ward must not have cared because he wasn't constantly involved. Actually, it doesn't matter whether Ward was an active participant or not. As is characteristic of innumerable Internet fora, the owner participated rarely, preferring to let his users get on with it.

You appear to be oddly obsessed with -- and very disparaging toward -- the WikiWikiWeb. Why is that?

Page protection[edit]

Please discuss This page has been protected for "Counter-productive edit warring" which is a good description of what's occurring. I don't know why there is such back-and-forth here but if you two can explain what exactly it is you want on this page and how the other person's preferred version doesn't address that, then we can move onwards and upwards. Note that protection is not an endorsement of anyone's preferred revision but simply an attempt to get the ceaseless back-and-forth to stop while you two talk. Koavf (talk) 02:59, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank You for the protection. I had already ask another Admin to protect the page but he did not even see reason to semi-protect it. Now things are as they should: WikiWikiWeb is locked and our page about it is locked as well. So, from my point of view, there is no reason for any further discussion, my goal is reached. Manorainjan (talk) 09:47, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
I'm the "other person" in this, an active participant from the WikiWikiWeb. The current version of this page is the preferred version, which accurately reflects its history as evidenced by quotes taken directly from the WikiWikiWeb. I don't understand why User:Manorainjan sought to lock this page (let alone why his goal was to lock the WikiWikiWeb itself), or why he tried to preserve his version of it with an incorrect statement about Ward Cunningham's participation, or why he tried to describe it as "locked" when it isn't. It isn't locked; it's being migrated to new software. The old software is no longer editable but the new software is live and is being used to migrate the content from the old software to the new software. This has been an eagerly-anticipated work-in-progress by Ward Cunningham since 2011 and now it's live -- though perhaps somewhat earlier than planned, because of Manorainjan's actions as described on this WikiWikiWeb page. It's perhaps marginally accurate to describe the old software as locked, but that's just old software; it's not the WikiWikiWeb itself. It's not accurate to describe the WikiWikiWeb as locked, because it isn't.

Protection as an endorsement of Koavfs preferred revision[edit]

Koavf demented after his first protection of the page: "Note that protection is not an endorsement of anyone's preferred revision". But he choose to protect it directly after Dave Voorhis reverted it to his preferred revision. At the time of Koavfs second protection he first reverted it himself to Dave Voorhis preferred revision and then protected it. This shows a clear bias not for Daves revision but against my revision. The current content wrongly shows WikiWikiweb to be driven by wiki engine: Federated wiki which was never a fact. Also there is no such engine. There is Smallest Federated Wiki and the SFW-engine is used for Federated wiki (wiki) only. The Wiki engine for WWW did not change and is still WikiWikiWeb. Ward did not make the same "mistake" twice to give the wiki the same name as the engine. It is only Daves distorted "argumentation" of lost points to lie about this and related facts like WWW not being read only. Manorainjan (talk) 11:03, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Your interpretation is essentially incorrect. Whilst it's true that "federated wiki" is not an engine and the "Smallest Federated Wiki" is a wiki engine, the "federated wiki" is a system, much like how the World Wide Web is a system. Think of the "federated wiki" as being like the World Wide Web whilst the "Smallest Federated Wiki" is like the Apache Web Server software.
The Wiki known as WikiWikiWeb -- which ran on the Perl software also sometimes known as WikiWikiWeb (which makes sense; given that when there was only one Wiki, the software was the Wiki), is now being migrated to the federated wiki. The federated wiki node is hosted using Ward's Smallest Federated Wiki software, but other federated wiki nodes may use different software. Thus, whilst it is true that the old view of the WikiWikWeb under the Perl software formerly known as WikiWikiWeb is now read-only, the WikiWikiWeb wiki is now part of the federated wiki system, and it is open for editing.
This is substantiated by Ward's final contribution of February 1, 2015, under the old Perl-based software at
Dave admits, that "WikiWikiWeb ... is now being migrated to the federated wiki" which implies that there are two wikis and content from the old wiki is copied to the newer wiki. And rightly the old one is called WikiWikiWeb. The new wiki is called Federated wiki. Those are the facts. I call that process a Fork he says migration. OK, why not. However: WikiWikiWeb is still running on WikiWikiWeb. No change here. To write "Wiki engine: Federated wiki" is falsification. Migration or forking; in any case we got two wikis with two different names, two URLs, two different engines and each Wiki got a page on WikiIndex. And WikiWikiWeb (the wiki) is read-only. The Status is dormant, just one final edit within the last 6 weeks. And Ward did not declare, that he intends to take down WikiWikiWeb. So the read-only WWW will remain as a potential source for forking content into the new Federated Wiki. Manorainjan (talk) 01:43, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
You again appear to be confusing WikiWikiWeb the Perl-based software with WikiWikiWeb the wiki. I note there's discussion on WikiIndex about migrating the wiki from one server to another. Does that mean WikiIndex is closed and its goals are achieved? Ward wrote "After twenty years of service I'm pleased to announce a complete rewrite of wiki as a single page application with a distributed database which will last us for at least 20 years, maybe 200," which clearly implies a continuation, not a cessation.
By the way, why does this matter to you? Your involvement with WikiWikWeb was intentionally destructive and your attempted descriptions here are dismissive. What do you have against the WikiWikiWeb?
Blocking Manorainjan, you need to stop editing this article or you'll be blocked. Feel free to post to this talk page or edit elsewhere in this wiki. Koavf (talk) 20:28, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

TWO infoboxes required[edit]

This article requires two infoboxes. It has long been agreed that when a wiki is effectively 'live' at two (or more) different sites or domains, then we have a separate infobox for each. We do not amend its existing infobox to a new url, and obliterate the former urls in said process! Here at WikiIndex, we not only document current wiki, we also preserve wiki history by documenting former wiki too. Sean, aka Hoof HeartedAdmin / 'Crattalk2HH 07:02, 5 February 2017 (PST)