Program: TiddlyWiki
License: BSD OpenSourceLicense
Description: A personal wiki or Content Management System, stored as a single html-file. Very expandable with a multitude of plugins (under the same license) and adaptations. Use on all major systems/browsers.
Website: http://www.tiddlywiki.com/
Other: Mature software with highly active user community (e.g http://groups.google.com/group/tiddlywiki/) and developers community.
Extremely versatile, can be used for e.g;
http://www.tiddlywiki.com/#Examples
Visit the Community page
Join our forums
Subscribe to our email newsletter
Subscribe with RSS
Follow us on Facebook
Follow us on LinkedIn
Follow us on Twitter
Follow us on Mastodon
Follow us on BlueSky
I've been using several TiddlyWiki files (my preference - other people like a single file) with the portable versions of Firefox from here for over a year without problems - and a lot of power. Without a doubt, I can support the claims of an active and HELPFUL support community. They have helped me tremendously. I also use TW files heavily at work for my journal and status reporting, knowledge database, and as my internal home page with all of my business links.
This isn't the sort of thing which can be made portable or put into the PortableApps.com Format - just use it with any browser, say Firefox Portable. There would be nothing to do with it if stuck in the PortableApps.com Format.
I am a Christian and a developer and moderator here.
“A soft answer turns away wrath, but a harsh word stirs up anger.” – Proverbs 15:1
We could make a quick launcher that adds a link to the menu and auto-creates a new wiki in TiddlyWikiPortable\Data\wiki on launch and then starts up Firefox Portable with said wiki. Users could then install multiple copies if they wanted. It would make using em easier for some.
Sometimes, the impossible can become possible, if you're awesome!
This could also lead to a way to include .html and .url entries in the menu.
neutron1132 (at) usa (dot) com
I have tried Tiddly Wiki. It is interesting and certainly, a way to create a new web page will easy its use, but this could be seen also as a general procedure to create a copy of a file that will be loaded later by a portable program.
Denis J Navas
As I understand it, they keep the core of TW is kept slim because it is a universal CMS tool. This makes a lot of it's functionality rely on it's "expandability" and what the user does decide to use it for. There are definitely things to *do* with it.
The most basic use is as a notebook. E.g OOo is a general tool for writing, whereas TiddlyWiki is more for note-taking and information collecting.
However, if you want it even more specific, take e.g the TiddlyWiki form MonkeyGTD, i.e a specific tool for the popular personal productivity system "Get Things Done";
http://monkeygtd.tiddlyspot.com/demo3.html
Download here: http://monkeygtd.tiddlyspot.com/#Demo
Discussion group: http://groups.google.se/group/GTD-TiddlyWiki/topics?hl=sv
Prime dev blog: http://monkeygtd.blogspot.com/
(Maybe I should suggest monkeyGTD as a separate item?)
Reading the
https://portableapps.com/about/what_is_a_portable_app
...TiddlyWiki fulfills every aspect, as far as I can tell.
It does, but it's not exactly worthwhile to make a launcher out of it. Easiest way to make an app out of it: set it as your FFP homepage ;).
Insert original signature here with Greasemonkey Script.
I don't really see the need to portabilize it though. I use TiddlySpot to keep my Wiki online. I don't need to carry it around on a flash drive.
TiddlySpot is a fantastic service, but there is definitely information you don't want to put up on a public server. I probably use some 8-10 active TiddlyWikis with at least two of them strictly on my flash drive.
Not to mention the fact that you're not always on-line.
Are you talking about not wanting it publicly viewable, or not having data that potentially compromizable?
My TiddlyWiki on TiddlySpot is password protected, so nobody can access but me. There isn't anything in there, that if someone hacks the server I'd be taken out back and shot for, but I just don't want the general public viewing it.
If you're talking about sensitive data then I believe there are encryption plugins for TiddlyWiki. I tried one but never got it to work with TiddlySpot because I think you need to be working on a local copy to encrypt tiddlers before uploading the file.
No offense, but I don't get where you want to get with this. Sometimes you simply want to store things locally. In a place such as Portableapps I thought this was obvious, but okay, here are some examples;
You may not have internet access.
You may wish to link to local stuff on your flashdrive.
You may wish to avoid or deal with certain proxy issues.
You may wish to not have to bother with the corporate firewalls.
You may not want to be dependent on security systems hosted by others.
...and so on.
If you really doubt that there are needs for local TiddlyWikis, I suggest you ask on the board (link given above). I for one, can tell you I prefer some 2-3 TiddlyWikis of mine to be local. Simple as that.
Internet Access--There's an extension that comes with the basic install that lets you download a syncable TiddlyWiki.
Link--I doubt you can link to local stuff in TiddlyWiki anyway.
Proxy--Just set the proxy in FFP.
...and so on.
The moral of this story is, TiddlySpot lets you sync a local version to the one on the web :).
Insert original signature here with Greasemonkey Script.
All I wanted was clarification of this statement, no offense:
What are the main differences between this and Wiki on a Stick?
I have two of those I use for two different novels I'm writing. One's serious, and the other's just a silly fanfic I started. I could keep them in the same wiki, but it helps to keep them separate.
I've become a huge advocate of personal wikis. One day I'll have a folder on my bookmarks toolbar dedicated to them... I can put recipes in one, tech stuff in another. Bookmarks are OK, but only as far as they link to live content or stuff that doesn't move. Instead, I can link to a wiki, and Portable Firefox updates the drive letter as I move from PC to PC, so it's a good variable-yet-permanent CMS.
The ONLY thing that bothers me about it, is that it uses neither standard HTML or MediaWiki markup. It uses a combination of HTML and Netspeak (e.g. *bold*, /italics/, and _underline_). And I don't mind that, since it looks fine when I save it.
TiddlyWiki expands each article without replacing the one before it - it stacks it above.
You can have as many different articles open on the page as you want, in any order, and you can close them individually, or all at once.
You might find it useful if you write in chunks, then you can kid of re-order them and see how they go.
There's also a lot of customization you can do to TiddlyWiki - more than I ever need to, at least.
I made this half-pony, half-monkey monster to please you.
You forgot to mention size. TiddlyWiki is only ~500kb, but (depending on your setup) a wiki on a stick can be ~50-80MB.
But there’s no sense crying over every mistake,
You just keep on trying till you run out of cake.
Size? The WoaS I'm writing in is only 375kB right now, and that's with 32-33k words. No images, just plain text. What do you have to do to get a WoaS in the 50-80MB range, and how can TiddlyWiki take that much data and squeeze it down to 500kB? Because that just doesn't sound right.
As for stacking, yeah, I saw that on the homepage. It's an interesting feature, but I don't really like it. Might have to try it out for another project though, no reason one can't have several wikis -- I have two copies of WoaS actually -- each with its own purpose.
Nathan are you talking about StickWiki (I never could figure out the exact name of the project)? I once used it and TiddlyWiki simultaneously to see which one I liked better and I can't remember why I settled on Tiddly.
I agree that the stacking feature is confusing at first and takes some getting used to but now I've been using Tiddly a lot, I've come to appreciate it. It's good for work when I have several things that I need open at once.
Does StickWiki have a search? I don't think it used to, and that was a big sway for Tiddly. Plus, the shear size of the Tiddly user base is a big plus (as it is for any application). I think at the time the main developer of StickWiki had more or less stopped working on it, but now somebody else has picked it up and development has been mildly steady again.
StickWiki is more comparable to a traditional wiki I would say whereas Tiddly is kind of a niche personal wiki. I've grown really fond of Tiddly and although I've revisited StickWiki once or twice, I saw no reason to go back. However, I would say that sometimes I like the cleaner look of StickWiki over Tiddly but the more I use Tiddly the more comfortable I become with the interface (it's just a different way of thinking, and takes some time to get your head around).
Oh btw, MediaWiki is not THE defacto standard in Wiki markup. As much as I like Wikipedia, the software behind it is probably one of the most un-userfriendly Wiki's I've ever used. I like the TiddlyWiki markup, I find that it's more representative of what I'm trying to do. Example: for italics use double forward slash; //. This to me implies slanting of text. The only attempt at standardizing Wiki markup that I know of is Creole, but there are many people who are against standardizing the markup language, for many reasons, but largely it seems because they argue that you're essentially creating another HTML of sorts.
StickWiki is in the URL, but the name's been Wiki on a Stick since I've started using it. Never paid attention to the URL or known it under any other names.
WoaS does have a search at Special::Search, which is by default on the navbar on the side. I don't use it, though, as I interlink everything through my five (so far) chapters on the left.
Seems like Wiki markup should be standardized, for the same reasons other web standards (HTML, CSS, e.g.) are standardized. One of MSIE's greatest weaknesses is a lack of standards support, to hear some of Firefox's biggest supporters tell it, and some of Opera's as well. But, that debate is entirely beside the point...
Problem is that "Wiki on a Stick" also typically refers to any instance of Wiki software that can be run from a USB Stick. I believe that even MediaWiki could be run from a USB stick since it's just MySQL and PHP (someone correct me if I'm wrong). I think they need to come up with a new project name.
Anyway, it's a decent project and certainly worthy of some more attention. I'm just happy with Tiddly now and have things set up the way I like them, so much so that I have no motivation to change. Plus, I recently found a slide presentation plugin which is very cool. Now my Wiki entries can be instant slides! (of course many people wouldn't care about that, but I use an instant of TiddlyWiki for work related stuff).
Maybe that's so, but that's how Microsoft names stuff, too. Windows, Mac OS, and Linux are all windows-based GUIs, just not Windows-based. Pun fully intended. And yes, MediaWiki can be run from a flash drive if you want to take all that time to set it up.
Gonna try TiddlyWiki, it'd probably be more appropriate for note taking. Still using WoaS for the novel though.
I'd mostly agree that Tiddly is good for taking notes and organizing random knowledge-base type information. However, with some clever use of tags and/or plugins you could adapt it for other uses.
One feature that I like is that tags or keywords can actually be the name of tiddlers (wiki entries). So that, if you tag a whole group of entries with the name of another entry, then when you view that entry tag, you'll see all the other entries that point to it.
It's kinda difficult to explain without actually giving a practical demonstration but for example if I create a bunch of entries that are all basically for "Chapter 1" of my book, then I can tag all those entries with "Chapter 1", create a "Chapter 1" entry and that "Chapter 1" entry will then list all those tagged entries.
Anyway, enough raving about Tiddly. I'm certainly not suggesting that it's all things to all people. Maybe it will not fulfill the need which you have for it, which is fair enough. If WoaS is the simpler solution then often it's best to go with what is simpler.
Just a note on TW for book writing; you may wish to check out the recently developed TreeViewPlugin variants. In my view this enables a "linearization" of otherwise unstructured notelets.
Regarding TW vs WoaS, the former has a *lot* more people working on it, as far as I can tell judging from the acivity on their respecive google group and from the presention on the software sites themselves.
Disclaimer; I have never worked with WoaS.
Just saw this and thought I'd share it.
http://img130.imageshack.us/img130/2808/wikiwhat.jpg
I am running two StickWikis (I like that term) and one TiddlyWiki. The TW is many times bigger than the two SWs combined. The TW has one article plus what it comes with. One SW has the first third or so of a novel, if I had to guess, it's maybe a couple thousand words. The other is the novel I'm working on (hence the name) and that is 45,017 words, I'm proud to say, plus author's notes which probably put it in the 47k neighborhood.
So at this stage of development (just text) SW is more efficient.
(Bonus -- the screenshot shows how I have two profiles in one Portable Firefox. Quick rename job and start it up, new profile. Just gotta keep the "home" one synced with the real home profile.)