Talk:Wikiware

Is this even a wiki?

If the purpose of this site is simply to archive existing free software releases, it's not at all clear to me how it would make use of wiki functionality - one of the defining properties of a wiki is that it be editable by users, and the content on this site would not be editable. This is probably not a good fit for a Wikimedia project. Omphalographer (talk) 22:05, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

Oh dear. It seems, in my insistence on the "authenticity" of its contents, I have neglected other aspects that would make it far more usable. Let me redress that.

To be abundantly clear, while keeping the original code would be nice, I do not envision a wiki where users simply "dump" source code. Come to think of it, it seems silly to bar users from attempting to improve the software. I am thinking of bug fixes, deleting unused code, and even replacing outdated libraries and system calls to take advantage of modern hardware and operating systems. That way, the programs would be far more usable to a wider variety of OSes that would otherwise be essentially locked out without a working emulator or compatibility layer. For example, many applications based on 32-bit versions of Windows depend on WoW64 to work on 64-bit versions of Windows, but we can second-guess that the compatibility layer will eventually be removed from later versions of Windows, and no future version of Windows will be able to execute those applications. This wiki would allow users to remove the need for a compatibility layer so that the programs would work natively, using the original code as a reference point.

In retrospect, it was vacuous for me to stress the archiving part of the wiki. The above solution should encourage users to think of ways that would make programs far more accessible, in keeping with the goal of facilitating the study of software and how it works. No need for pointless system requirements. Big Blue Gnu 15:36, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

Unfortunately, that just introduces a host of new questions:

1. Why a wiki? A wiki is an extraordinarily awkward way of working with source code; it does not provide any way for users to download all of the files related to a project at once, or to view the complete state of an application at a specific point in time (i.e. a "tagged version"), or to make coordinated changes across multiple files at once. There are well-established source code forges which do allow for these sorts of operations; why should this project use a less suitable tool?
2. How would this project coexist with upstream projects? Most open-source projects have active developer communities elsewhere; creating "forks" of those projects here without consulting those developers could be seen as a hostile act. (Additionally, some projects have trademark policies which would require changes to the naming/branding of such forks.)
3. What, if any, assurances would end users have about the safety and correctness of software on this site? User expectations are considerably higher for software than for (e.g.) an encyclopedia; the presence of "vandalism" (e.g. deliberate modifications to code which makes it nonfunctional, or which introduce malicious code) could pose a substantial risk to users.

Omphalographer (talk) 19:22, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

I shall only consider the first point, which I believe is sufficient enough to consider a backup, to speak nothing of the other two.

The only other thing I could think of is the website providing analyses of the software being uploaded. In this case, the source code would not be changed (except in the rare cases outlined initially, such as purging copyrighted content), but users could add information about programs, their features, and how they work. I do not envision tutorials necessarily. Rather, the pages would serve to inform users what purpose the programs serve and how they achieve those ends. More than well-written documentations, the contents of the pages would be verified directly by portions of the source code. The pages could be split up into subpages if necessary, but the whole point is to provide a wiki containing information about software that is too technical or otherwise not suitable for other wikis. It would not just be a Wikibooks for software.

For example, there could be a page about the raster graphics editor GIMP. At the very least, the main page would consist of what GIMP is, its uses, and an outline of its features, along with subpages and page descriptions, as it would likely be too long to describe the application's every feature in one page. Ideally, the pages would contain everything one could possibly want to know about the software at hand, not including externalities such as development background and reception. One subpage could be about the toolbox, with explanations for how tools such as Rectangle Select and Paintbrush work. The developer's documentation such as this might be used to verify the intent of those tools, but it helps twofold to turn to the relevant code. First, the documenting user receives firsthand knowledge of how the application runs, and the end user can see for him- or herself how the application executes its functions. For tools that were added in newer versions, the user could add in the version number in which the feature first appeared, citing code differences. As I write this, I realize the potential need for glossaries related to programming. It might be helpful, say, to have one for programming jargon such as declaration and assignment, and another for comparing data types across languages. Something to aid the reader in understanding the code beimg cited.

In short, the source code would be preserved as is, but users would be crafting not textbooks or guides, but detailed analyses of software's features and functions, citing the actual source code as evidence. The main point of Wikiware is to supplement Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons with a wiki that would touch upon software in ways that the others would not. Paintings, whole PDFs, music, and films occasionally end up on one or both, but (other than screenshots and videos) not FOSS software or games. Even Wikisource hosts whole copies of textual works. Wikiware would close what gap in knowledge and accessibility remains between the user and free software. If, however, I did indeed describe basically another Wikibooks, I suppose there really isn't much more that can be done to close that gap than to simply link to the repositories on GitHub and other platforms on Wikidata and let users poke around there. Big Blue Gnu 08:28, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

Okay, at this point you've described at least three different projects (hosting software releases, hosting modified software, and hosting software documentation), and the latter doesn't seem to match the description on your proposal. I think you may need to sit back and think this one over a bit more before proposing it.

As far as documentation goes, that would already be welcome on Wikibooks. The question I'd have is whether you think there's a community of users willing to create that documentation - I've seen a few projects on Wikibooks and Wikiversity attempt to do that, but they found no traction, and I believe they were eventually deleted. Keep the Wikinews lesson in mind: creating a new site doesn't guarantee that editors will show up. Omphalographer (talk) 00:26, 28 July 2026 (UTC)