5

I did a bit more research... turns out that there's pretty much a metric buttload of sites still using it. There's still a solid community. And a lot of plugins. That specific version of tiddlywiki was so solid and useful that people said "Nah, man... I like this just fine."

And while there's a few other options for a portable wiki, if I weigh the features of those against "ugh, export/import data from an existing wiki"... Imma just stick with what I have.

Thanks for the feedback though.

I did a bit more research... turns out that there's pretty much a metric buttload of sites *still* using it. There's *still* a solid community. And a lot of plugins. That specific version of tiddlywiki was so solid and useful that people said "Nah, man... I like this just fine." And while there's a few other options for a portable wiki, if I weigh the features of those against "ugh, export/import data from an existing wiki"... Imma just stick with what I have. Thanks for the feedback though.

2 comments

Context? This sounds like the drivel you'd get after a bad bowl of brusselssplats.

Tiddlywiki is a single-page wiki that can be used and viewed offline, is portable, and is old. As in "no more support" old because the current version (10 years later) is some kind of freak-show shadow of what it used to be.

I had been musing whether or not to continue using it or go ahead and migrate it to a wiki on a server I have using the exact same software running wikipedia.

The end decision was that I would continue using what I started with and when it was complete to migrate it to my personal server, thus allowing me to continue to use the software I have and am familiar with and have a final way to proof-read the wiki as I ported it over. More work in the long run but guaranteed to be full and correct when released.