QUOTE(NuclearWarfare @ Tue 27th July 2010, 3:26pm)
It exists but is visible only to logged-in users (as with most "special" pages). By this I mean the "permissions error" is replaced by a phony 404 and an http-refresh redirect back to the home page.
The log-in screen is in
the usual place, but account creation is
disabled, and thus would require an existing admin to create an account and e-mail you the password for it.
The closest thing available thing to a list of editors is an
index of pages in namespace 2, but this excludes "red link" accounts which haven't posted a user-page, fails to exclude pages for which no account exists, and offers no immediate way to see which ones have made any edits (as
Special:Contributions is also private).
While
edit history for a page is disabled, you could reconstruct it from individual edits if you know what you're doing and there is a page you're curious about.
That's because one thing they forgot to suppress is the "diff" view (
example).
QUOTE(thekohser @ Tue 27th July 2010, 5:16pm)
QUOTE(Theanima @ Tue 27th July 2010, 12:54pm)
MediaWiki is, if you didn't know, very compatible and can be configured in all kinds of ways to fit certain requirements.
I run a configured MediaWiki site with 63,000 pages, so yeah, I did know that. But, when you say that it's "very compatible" -- with what?
Compatible with a wide variety of needs and purposes, I think (e.g. YourWikiBiz employs features for which other sites may find no use, and vice versa).
QUOTE(Zoloft @ Tue 27th July 2010, 5:32pm)
It's a wiki, because of the software, but configured in ways that go against what a wiki is presumed to be - in terms of the open collaboration and free editing (for 'free' read 'merciless').
Shrug. Definitions will always vary.
This post has been edited by CharlotteWebb: 
Wikileaks, not really a wiki?
thekohser Wikileaks 
