Feedback!

I would like a way to share selected pages with specific people, without having to set up multiple wikis.

This would allow me to share page A with Adam and Angela, and page B with Brian and Brittany.

I signed up for hidden pages, but now I've found that it doesn't really work that way. To share the hidden pages, I have to make Brian, for example, a moderator or administrator and now he can see all the pages, not just the ones that I want him to see.

I've set up pbwiki pages for different classes I teach. At the end of the semester I clear them out and delete the pages the students have created and then start fresh with a new password for a new class in the new semester. Problem: I can't clear out the 'recent activity' list. This means that even though the last time my last class posted stuff it was 2 months ago, new students start the term with these 'confusing' (to them) listings for things I deleted or with people's names that are not relevant to our current class. It would be great to be able to 'clear' that listing so it can start fresh.

It would also be nice if that side bar was perhaps narrower... it takes up a lot of real estate.

pkl

If you use FireFox as a browser, you can add add-ons containing spell check dictionaries for many languages. When you are typing, just right-click in the box and able "spell check this field" in the drop-down menu. If you have multiple languages installed, you can also choose the language to use ;-)

My wish list features...

I want to setup a discussion thread forum within our wiki that fires a group
email or RSS alert to all wiki members on new posting/s. Maybe only fires
once until the user logs in again, but holds other alerts for review on
log-in (so A made the first change - fire alert, then B & C both made more
changes. D sees the A alert and then sees the B&C alerts on login)

I want to show all amendments to the posted session texts (our weekly work)
to display in various colours from the basic page view 'natively' (ie a
local default for these pages only, but without being in edit page mode).
This way all members will clearly see changes and authorship without going
to 'History' - like in a tracked changes document with multiple authoring eg
MS Word. Related to this is the ability for many users to add-edit to a
basic text document/wiki page simultaneously, then display this as a
composite text artefact. Some conflicts might need to be triaged by the
admin/moderator? but less than we might think.

What, pray tell, is "auto-linking"? The term does not appear on the linked FAQ.

PBwiki has had CamelCase linking since day 1, but only in their markup-based wiki. However, they determined that users wanted WYSIWYG more than wiki markup, so they are eliminating their markup-based product in favor of WYSIWYG. Needless to say, the WYSIWYG editor doesn't support markup, just "Point-and-Click" creation of links. That's supposed to be better.

I prefer markup myself. They say they're going to keep the 1.0 platform around, and I'll certainly not be moving any of *my* wikis to the new "just like every other platform on the internet" WYSIWYG editor. They also say they're going to stop allowing the creation of old-school markup wikis at some point, so I'm thinking about using a script to create a whole buncha 1.0 wikis before the Iron Curtain falls, just so I can sell them to new users who need one.

I created a ClearWiki, and it's WYSIWYG as well. Meh. I can't figure out how to make it public, so that's a HUGE drawback. Anyway, I created a page named "CamelCase", then edited the frontpage on my ClearWiki, entered the word "CamelCase", and it's not automatically creating a link.

Never said ClearWiki had any particular feature, including Auto-linking! Thx for the reply though.

Not sure if this made it earlier, had some login issues. Some comments about version 2.0... Generally, I like the layout and useability of 1.0 better. It just seems easier to navigate and more user friendly. Here's an example.The small sidebar that appears on the side (not the page itself) is lower on the screen relative to the actual page it accompanies, than it is on version 1. In order for it to be effective as a menu page, I think it should appear at roughly the top half of the screen.