Conflicting WikiOnWiki opinions leads to the inability to create a stable refactoring
Too many harassers and bullies and no one to stop them. No authority, no deterrents. When someone wants to do something about it he is branded a pest and it's always back to business as usual without ever having one problem solved.
Wiki readers don't get paid and you are spending more time using Wiki as a chatroom and less as a reference for programming
Spam from the increasingly common Holy/Edit/Flame Wars
No rules; it's a jungle
No community. It's a jungle without any authority
lack of authority = jungle?
yes, I prefer my jungles with lots of authority
is it possible that a lack of authority might possibly be something other than a jungle?
Wiki gives every individual equal control over my attention; I want to have complete control over my own attention.
It got boring when all of the above were all anyone talked about.
Because a wiki that is not always editable does not really work.
Don't give up on Wiki.
But do take a break if it is what you need.
I never gave in to Wiki.
Much of the problem tends to arise from having the EditPower?, but not the EditWisdom? to go with it. Wiki is still in the defining stages, in my opinion. I have an idea of WhatWikiShouldBe, perhaps in time, it may come about. -- WikiZen
I see different opinions as potentially a good thing, if they are properly presented and tamed. Exploring an idea from multiple perspectives should be encouraged. If an opinion is objectively wrong, then some kind of semi-formal proof should be offered. This can also be useful info. For example, take a typical ThreadMess and build a parallel page that attempts to factor, summarize, and categorize the various arguments and viewpoints broken down via StepwiseRefinement, or a similar decomposition technique.
Instead of GaveUpOnWiki, try GaveUpOnRecentChanges.
What about `WhatWikiCanBe'? (my PointOfView on this continues on that page)