A friend of mine noticed an odd bit of lexicon recently: "Wiki" used to describe a site like this one, where all pages were open to change by anyone, perhaps barring some rules on spam and such.  Such a wiki is a social structure as well as an information structure, a WikiCommunity.  However, he has seen many instances of websites using WikiSoftware to build the site, but which have editing only allowed by a choice number of maintainers.  

Given that these sites often provide public content (as opposed to being social WalledGardens), he has no problem with using wiki software in this manner.  It's more a matter of definition: if a wiki is a site that allows editing by anyone, then what does one call a site using wiki software where such a function has been disabled?  If a wiki is simply a site using "wiki software", then how does one distinguish the difference between a type of software and a type of community?

My jesting proposal that wikis forbidding general editing be simply called "georges" instead was not taken that well.  My friend takes matters of definition far too seriously.  However, it is still an interesting question, so I thought I'd slap the name on it anyway and throw this out for comments.
-- SimonHeath

''You bring up some very good points.  I think that first Wiki has to be defined.  Since Wiki means "quickly", all the name means is that pages can be created and edited quickly.  What has Wiki grown to mean as a software, now that is a bit more tricky.  However, I believe that you have nailed the definition to a T [...a site like this one, where all pages were open to change by anyone, perhaps barring some rules on spam and such.  Such a Wiki is a social structure as well as an information structure, a WikiCommunity].  I'm one of those people that see Wiki as more then just a collaboration tool for the use of creating documents, as I too feel that "social structure" and WikiCommunity are really what Ward has created, whether that was his intent or not.  GeorgeWiki''''''s to me are not Wikis at all, but rather just websites where the author(s) used Wiki software as the HTML editor.  I look forward to what others have to say. -- Seattle1''

If you're going to 'define' Wiki, I'd suggest an examination of WikiDesignPrinciples.  These principles don't exactly forbid a closed community, but they do aim to avoid a dichotomy between readers and writers - so a closed community wiki should be closed to both reading and writing. I believe it is the avoidance of local reference within hierarchical namespaces and the absence of ''individual'' 'ownership' for most pages that are most relevant to defining Wiki.