Pinterest Stumbleupon Whatsapp
Ads by Google

We all love wikipedia Wikipedia - Biggest Online Encyclopedia Wikipedia - Biggest Online Encyclopedia Read More : it’s comprehensive, 100% user-edited (aka wiki-style), up-to-date, rather objective, and totally free. It’s a perfect wiki-powered system. While it’s by far the most popular one, it’s not the only wiki-style website that ‘works’. There are plenty of other successful wikis, focused on specific areas i.e, book summaries, cooking, HowTo’s and even ‘bullshit’. So, here you go, popular wikis that have something to offer.

Popular Wikis

(1) Wikipedia – all-favorite, biggest online encyclopedia

(2) WikiTravel – world-wide travel guide, covers destination guides, hotels and resorts

(3) WikiHow – ‘How-To’ manuals for the problems of everyday life. (‘HowTo’s: Hack a Coke Machine, Get Six Pack Abs, How to choose a Debt Management program, etc.)

(4) WikiBooks – huge collection of user-edited, open-content textbooks and guides. (Textbooks: Chess guide, Learn French … )

Ads by Google

(5) CookBookWiki – recipes and cooking related wiki. Sections include: dishes, recipes, cuisines and channels

(6) WikiSummaries – short, quick summaries for thousands of books. (Summaries: Freakonomics, Getting Things Done, …, see other bestsellers)

(7) WikiMapia – cool mashup between Google Maps and wiki-style editing. Lets you browse, view, search and add descriptive notes to any location on the globe.

(8) Wiktionary – multilingual, comprehensive, user-edited dictionary. Provides word definitions, etymologies, pronunciations, sample quotations, synonyms, antonyms and translations.

(9) Uncyclopedia – extremely entertaining wikipedia clone, that is filled with funny and not-necessarily correct articles. Check out: Colonel, Britney Spears, Donald Trump, …or an image pulled from an article about Women. (No offense ladies, it’s just funny…)

(10) EncyclopediaDramatica (update: this entry was removed from the list. More on this in comments)

(10) ProductWiki – collaborative product reviews.

(11) LyricWiki – comprehensive, user-edited source for lyrics. Claims to host lyrics for any song from any artist.

(12) WikiCars – a collaborative guide about cars and all auto-related stuff.

Some Smaller Topic Specific Wikis

  1. camille
    March 8, 2015 at 8:37 am

    any updates?

  2. Chris B
    December 29, 2014 at 4:28 am

    I love this one: [*http://moneymakeia.com moneymakeia.com]
    The Money Making Encyclopedia.

  3. Haitian
    November 27, 2009 at 11:09 am

    This is a very nice post, this help a lot. Thank you

  4. sleeping disorders
    November 13, 2008 at 10:47 am

    this is really cool. i really only knew about wikipedia. wikitravel sounds pretty interesting.

  5. EDiot
    May 4, 2008 at 8:10 am

    Aibek you're actuly scared of ED? lulz
    if you're actuly hurt by someone you've never met saying nasty things about you on the internet then you have problems

  6. Kheoh Yee Wei
    December 19, 2007 at 7:38 am

    http://www.wikileaks.org/ is good as well.

  7. Pedobear
    December 11, 2007 at 4:44 pm

    Encyclopedia Dramatica is funny, you just don't get the joke.

    Define "ACTUAL HARM". I personally define it as physical harm, mental anguish is BS. The site is obviously entirely made up facts and if that gets to you and causes "actual harm" then I feel sorry for you.

    Internet stalking isn't real stalking.

    ED deserves to be on the list, it does work. It just works towards something you dislike. Get over it and don't go there if it doesn't interest you.

  8. Somebody
    August 26, 2007 at 8:47 pm

    Offensive humor is still humor. The problem with Encyclopedia Dramatica is that it ISN'T funny, just offensive. The people there don't just say mean things, they intend to cause ACTUAL HARM to anybody they disagree with. A joke about stalking might be funny, but actual stalking isn't.

  9. Nathaniel Ezrail
    August 21, 2007 at 9:43 pm

    @Paul

    The lulz have returned and they are significantly stronger then before.
    I suggest that the good Aibek uncrosses the ED part and links to it once moar.
    There is things on ED that you will not be able to find anywhere else.

    Say what you will about ED's immature 'sewer' humour. It takes a certain intelligence to deliberately pull off that kind humour and you know it. Go on Aibek, do it for the lulz!

  10. Mark Levison
    May 6, 2007 at 11:24 pm

    You kind of missed an important one. Without this wiki:
    http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?WelcomeVisitors
    there would be no others.

    Mark - who has been using wikis since shortly before time began.

  11. Paul
    May 1, 2007 at 8:23 am

    @Joseph
    I was party to being attacked on ED myself, all because one of their members got banned from another wiki. Its a site filled with trolls, and net stalkers, who are in the throws of puberty and haven't realised how to be responsible.

    Of course, if the community really wanted to be anything else, they'd remove this content. However they don't. They promote it.

    Isn't the point of offensive humour that its supposed to make everyone laugh at its absurdity and its ridiculousness, not just those who write it?

    Luckily the site is dead now.

  12. Aibek
    April 30, 2007 at 9:26 pm

    @ED, @Anonymous(both of you)

    I see your point guyz, and I agree that 'offensive humor' is the whole point behind ED. I have nothing against seeing how a group of people come together and call W.Bush all nice things my grandma had never heard off. It's funny, it's mean, ... and in many cases never taken seriously. Just pure fun.

    What makes it problematic, when it goes beyond being fun to derogatory.
    Steve provided couple of links showing that. But the main point, being a wikipedia fan, I am 100% sure these guyz would never try blocking it unless there is a STRONG problem behind it.

    Anyways, I have no intention in undermining one big wiki(ED) to make another one look better(Unencyclopedia in this case). They all have fans, supporters and obsessive contributors. For now, I'll keep ED out, and if majority of readers decide that I am wrong, I'll put it back. I'll be checking up on comments.

  13. Mudkips
    April 30, 2007 at 5:23 pm

    @Steve

    Encyclopedia Dramatica is fucking hilarious, just because I don't find Larry the Cable guy funny like you do Steve doesn't mean he is offensive.

  14. Anonymous
    April 30, 2007 at 3:56 pm

    you're wrong you're wrong you're wrong you're wrong you're wrong .......

    Aibek: (this comment was shortened (approx. 10x times))

  15. Anonymous
    April 30, 2007 at 3:54 pm

    Why you removed the link to ED ?
    What, is it offensive ?
    That is the purpose of the wiki! To have offensive humor.
    It's a good wiki if you are searching for internet memes (wikipedia doesn't have any information at all about this) or recent things that happened on the internet.

    Steve is a fool, obviously he is one of the people ED makes fun of and he is insulted, well because 1 is insulted doesn't make the wiki bad.
    I find it entertaining and i find entertaining that Steve is insulted.

  16. ED
    April 30, 2007 at 3:32 pm

    You removed ED? It works though, unlike uncyclopedia. Don't be a fag because people think it's offensive, THAT IS THE POINT. Besides, how the else am I supposed to find out what "Shoop the Whoop" means? Wikipedia sure as hell will just redirect to the 4chan article...

  17. Steve
    April 30, 2007 at 3:27 pm

    @Amy: Well, the serious answer would be because the activities taking place there aren't humor, they're wrong, and decent people don't do things like that. (Of course, that makes the false assumption that the contributors there are decent people, which is laughable.) However, the more practical answer is, yes, they do want it to be a sewer, they revel in rolling in the manure they produce, and they have no reason to change it at all. They also, being the people they are, have no cognizance that running an obvious sewer while at the same time criticizing people for pointing out that it is a sewer. Thankfully, their complete lack of sense doesn't change the fact that as long as their rolling in the muck produced there, they're covered in it and completely responsible for it.

  18. Amy
    April 30, 2007 at 3:14 pm

    The whole point of ED is that it's a sewer. Why should the editors clean it up when this is their chosen form of humour?

  19. Ryan Fox
    April 30, 2007 at 5:25 am

    If you're looking to/don't mind adding to the topic-specific section, the Game Programming Wiki (http://www.gpwiki.org) is a successful wiki about game programming. (Go figure!)

  20. Steve
    April 29, 2007 at 11:46 am

    @Joseph: Absolute rubbish. Wikis do allow anyone to edit, and it does result in inappropriate content being added. There is, however, a simple answer to this problem: You delete it and block the responsible individuals. (Take note of a wiki that is actually successful, like Wikipedia: There are hundreds and thousands of people cleaning up trash all the time, and as a result, the site's contributors are acknowledged as responsible individuals who refuse to condone the type of sewer atmosphere that thrives at ED.) If the "community" at ED banned stalking and trolling, deleted the criminal content posted there, and blocked the responsible parties from further action, then it would be unfair to lump ED contributors together. That is not the case however. As long as the type of content I've linked, and worse, is welcome and encouraged at ED, then every contributor there is a conspirator and accessory to the activities there. You don't have to be responsible for it; you choose to be by continuing to support the activities that go on there. If you want people to stop labeling ED a sewer, then clean it up, and stop letting people use it as a toilet.

  21. Aibek
    April 29, 2007 at 10:10 am

    @Joseph

    I agree that the nature of a wiki is to allow ANYONE to edit and add articles. And as you mentioned, over time this will allow any article to reach a standard of accuracy that can be accepted by the whole wiki community.

    However, it seems to me, that in ED's case it's not about accuracy but rather about how mean can you be. I understand that this may be the main ingredient in making it funny and entertaining but there should be a limit to how war you can go with it. For instance, unencyclopedia does a good job in this respect, it's entertaining and yet not so offensive.

    As about Steve's comment, I agree he may seem rather harsh and subjective towards them, and have no doubt that ED has lots of good editors as well. I wouldn't remove the link from this post if not for the fact that Wikipedia itself banned all outgoing links to ED. Wikipedia isn't a profit-driven enterprise and if they decided to ban ED links, I have no doubt that there was a strong reason behind it.

  22. Joseph
    April 29, 2007 at 12:38 am

    I think Steve is being both harsh and rash with his comments about Encyclopedia Dramatica, especially since this article is on Wikis.

    The nature of a wiki allows many people edit and submit articles. Ideally over time this will allow any article to reach a standard of accuracy that can be accepted by the whole wiki community.

    Articles which have not yet reached such a standard or which have been submitted by members that wish to give their own perspective on a subject rather than a neutral point of view can be found in any wiki.

    I think it is wrong that EVERY member of Encyclopedia Dramatica should be slighted by Steve in such a way, being branded as stalkers, trolls and potential felons, simply because of a few select articles that they had no part in creating. If Steve's attitude were to be taken seriously then no one would ever dare post in a wiki because of the fear that something another member may post would unfairly tarnish their own character.

    Thankfully this is not the case and Encyclopedia Dramatica's large and active community freely gives of its own time to ensure that the wiki contains a wealth of up-to-date information on Internet culture and memes for educational and entertainment purposes.

  23. Aibek
    April 28, 2007 at 9:56 pm

    it's not bad, and If I learned about it earlier I would perhaps include it in the 'Smaller Topic Specific Wikis' section. Although, thanks for letting me know about it.

  24. SF
    April 28, 2007 at 6:18 pm

    How about EvoWiki?

  25. Steve
    April 28, 2007 at 9:19 am

    @Aibek: You're a good man. Excellent choices for the others.

  26. Aibek
    April 28, 2007 at 8:06 am

    @Steve

    Thanks Steve, that's good enough. I renamed the title to '12 Popular wikis ' and crossed over 'ED' entry

  27. Steve
    April 28, 2007 at 7:32 am

    @Aibek:

    Here's a good example: http://encyclopediadramatica.com/index.php/MONGO

    That particular case eventually caused the English Wikipedia to ban any link to ED whatsoever.

    A nice collection of people they've smeared: http://encyclopediadramatica.com/index.php/Bureaucratic_Fuck

    From that page:

    Redwolf24 is a bureaucratic fuck who independently bans users for arguing with him. He once ran for bureaucrat, but was fucked by the community. This is because he is a bureaucratic fuck. Amazingly, not even Wikipedia was enough for Redwolf24 to satisfy the needs of his bureaucratic e-penis, so he had to create an account on Uncyclopedia purely for the purpose of further whining and bitching about this website. No srsly, you won't believe this shit!

    Lovely things to say about a 14 year old.

    If that's the criteria for a "Wiki that works"...

  28. Aibek
    April 27, 2007 at 8:47 pm

    Thanks for the links George. I agree with you there are many other good wikis. When it comes to my post, in it's popular section I listed only those wikis, which focus on wider topics, i.e. cars, books, dictionary, etc.

  29. George
    April 27, 2007 at 7:43 pm

    I actually think there quite a few wikis that "work". It really depends on what you are interested. If you are interested in golf, then a golf wiki might be great to you.

    My wife and I started a homeschooling wiki that is slowly getting better and better for the homeschooling community. Personally, I enjoy reading quite a few of the tv wikis (like Heroeswiki).

    Just my thoughts.

  30. Aibek
    April 27, 2007 at 5:20 pm

    @Steve
    hmmmmm... Let me do following, I will add note near ED entry referring to the first comment entry(that's yours). If you send me couple of links proving your claims, I'll remove it completely. Hope that's fine

  31. TQuizzle
    April 27, 2007 at 1:17 pm

    Great List!
    I was familiar with most, but you introduced a few new ones.

  32. Steve
    April 27, 2007 at 12:00 am

    All of these are great, except Encyclopedia Dramatica; ED started as a parody like Uncyclopedia, but has become a site filled with stalkers and trolls. ED "editors" are well known for stalking Wikipedia editors, disclosing the identities of anonymous contributors, and harrassing them at work and trying to get them fired. It's not a wiki that works; it's a felony indictment waiting to happen. It should be removed from the list immediately.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *