Official Timetable for Updating from PBwiki 1.0 to PBwiki 2.0

21 Jan

If you’re still on a PBwiki 1.0 wiki, you’ve probably received an email recently about updating to PBwiki 2.0. Beginning on March 9th, 2009, all 1.0 wikis will automatically update to 2.0.

Don’t worry — you have plenty of time to make the change (a free update, which takes less than 5 minutes), plus we’ve got an excellent support team waiting to help you.

When we launched PBwiki in 2005, we designed our system to be easy to edit and share. Now, 4 years later, our users have taught us a lot. You’ve told us that you want more control over users, more powerful editing/sharing features, and an improved user interface.

In 2008, we rolled out PBwiki 2.0 to address those needs. A year later, we’ve concluded that for just about every usage, PBwiki 2.0 works better than 1.0 for collaborating and sharing information. 2.0 even gives you new features like Classroom Accounts (which allow educators to invite students without email addresses) and Document Management.

Updating to 2.0 does mean learning a different user interface, but the folks who’ve made the switch will tell you it’s worth it:

Finally upgraded my pbwiki site to 2.0. why did i wait so long to do this! wow! – starryhope01

I have used PBwiki for 2 graduate courses with the same students. All of us like the PBwiki 2.0 over the earlier version. This version feels more intuitive and allows me to break the class into groups with their own work areas (folders). -Jane Allgood, Ph.D.

You can use a simple wizard to update to 2.0 (again, it’s free and takes about 5 minutes). You will not lose any content by updating to 2.0, and with Classroom Accounts (which replace invite keys), reader comments, folders, easier editing, full CSS customization, and so on, PBwiki 2.0 allows you to do just pretty much everything you could with PBwiki 1.0 and more.

You can update to 2.0 at any time, or you can wait until March 9th, and we’ll update for you.

To update to PBwiki 2.0, go to WIKINAME.pbworks.com/migration.php (just replace WIKINAME with the name of your wiki) and follow the instructions on screen!

67 Responses to “Official Timetable for Updating from PBwiki 1.0 to PBwiki 2.0”

  1. Richard Johnston January 23, 2009 at 2:30 pm #

    I was one of the early users of pbwiki, when you just had one or two people working on this.

    I like the format and editing system etc of version 1.0, and I HATE almost everything about version 2.0, its appearance (why is the background to the text stark white, for example?), the editor system – the old “classic editor” allowed material to be edited in any text editor and then pasted onto the page.

    Why not keep the old style pbwiki for those who liked it, who chose to use pbwiki because they liked it as it was.

    IN SHORT, GIVE US THE CHOICE TO GO ON USING THE OLD SYSTEM.

    WHY NOT?

  2. Hans-Peter Störr January 27, 2009 at 2:26 pm #

    I am a little unhappy about this mandatory upgrade. The reason I did not upgrade is exactly the new editor interface. I do like the plain text interface much better, since I don’t have to use the mouse for formatting. That’s much faster. It would be nice if you could provide the old editor as an alternative as well.

    Best regards,

    Hans-Peter

  3. kristine January 29, 2009 at 5:44 pm #

    Hi guys,

    We believe that PBwiki 2.0 is an all-around better product with stronger security features and easier sharing. We want to be able to easily deliver new features and improve existing features – we can’t do this while supporting both products.

    For those of you who are crazy about the plain text editor, you’ll be interested to see some of the new features we’re developing for PB2.0. Sign up for the Alpha Team to test them out: pbwiki.com/ateam

    -Kristine

  4. Chris Yeh January 29, 2009 at 8:52 pm #

    As the main Classic Editor fan among the PBwiki staff, the upgrade has me sad as well. Classic Editor loads faster, and you can write in a simple text editor, giving you what’s essentially an offline edit mode.

    But, even I have to admit that 2.0 is generally a better product, especially for dealing with things like complex tables and nested bullets.

    It’s also the case that from a business standpoint, it’s tough to justify maintaining two different products, especially since one of the products (2.0) generates the vast majority of the money.

    I’ll keep advocating for some sort of wikistyle editing in PBwiki 2.0, but I understand the decision to phase out the old product.

  5. James Buckner February 3, 2009 at 7:11 pm #

    I tried to switch to version 2.0, even though I like the classic editor better. However, the page-specific javascript I use is not supported in the free edition of version 2.0. I’m not sure it’s even supported in the paid subscription version.

    I really can’t get the functionality I need in version 2.0. If you bring the classic editor and page-specific javascript support into version 2.0, I’ll use it. Otherwise, I’ll have no choice but to look for another platform for my wiki needs.

    -James Buckner
    jamesbuckner.pbwiki.com

  6. MHD February 4, 2009 at 1:20 am #

    I too am really sad about discontinuing pbwiki 1.0, though I can understand it is tough to maintain two parallel systems. I’ve really enjoyed using your product in the past years (intensively since 2006), so I do promise to give 2.0 a try. Whether I’ll find the result satisfying depends partly on how well the widget library at http://widget.pbwiki.com/ manages to cope with the transition.

    Still, I am afraid the disappearance of the classic editor and look will mean that I will stop using pbwiki altogether..

    Cheers,
    MHD

  7. .... February 4, 2009 at 8:33 am #

    You guys suck making us upgrade. I used to have my Wiki ON 2.0 and it SUCKS big time. If you have a big wiki with lots of linked pictures, it becomes NEAR impossible to create new pages and stuff.

    Thanks for nothing. Making us upgrade from 1.0, which works great, to a crappy piece of… like 2.0

    • Kailyn September 25, 2011 at 9:02 am #

      Until I found this I thought I’d have to spend the day iisdne.

  8. Jesse February 4, 2009 at 9:56 am #

    I really do not like this forced switch to PBwiki 2.0
    I strongly dislike PBwiki 2.0, and have been using PBwiki 1.0 for more than a year now. I use it daily, and manage six wikis.

    I very much do not like the idea of being forced to upgrade to PBwiki 2.0

  9. AmyLynn February 4, 2009 at 10:10 am #

    It’s odd that all of your users are telling you they don’t like 2.0 and yet you’re pushing through anyway. I personally think 2.0 is a step backward, especially for educators using wikis in their classrooms. With 1.0 we could simply post a password and be done, with 2.0 we will have to apply for and assign individual usernames and passwords to each student. I also use pbwikis for giving talks in larger settings such as conferences, I won’t be able to do that anymore unless I want to make my wiki public. One other negative is that I deleted the sidebar on all of my 1.0 wikis, now with 2.0 it’s really crucial and it’s not something I can get back. It’s a shame, but I’m going to need to switch to another company such as WetPaint.

  10. rachel February 4, 2009 at 10:37 am #

    Hi James,

    Have you tried using the HTML/Javascript plugin? This should allow you to include the page-level JS you wish to include :)

    Rachel
    PBwiki Support & Services

  11. rachel February 4, 2009 at 10:41 am #

    Hey All,

    We’d love to hear your feedback so we can improve 2.0 and make it something you love. Please click the “Help” link on your wiki to send us your feedback. I look forward to hearing from you!

    Rachel
    PBwiki Support & Services

  12. Theresa February 4, 2009 at 4:39 pm #

    I have a handful of pbwikis; a while back I bumped one up to 2.0 to give it a shot. I can safely say I find 2.0 an utter horror. 1.0 is simple, easy to use and it WORKS, whereas 2.0 is a constant irritant, cumbersome to use and dreadful to look at. Please, please reconsider this forced upgrade. Don’t assume ‘oh, they’ll all get used to it once they stop whining and being obstinant.’ You’re phasing out an old but efficient version for one that is glossy and buggy. Where have I heard of this happening befo- OH, THAT’S RIGHT, WINDOWS VISTA.

  13. Michael Brutsch February 5, 2009 at 11:58 am #

    I knew David Weekly was lying when he said we’d never be forced to upgrade to their 2.0 crap. Luckily for them, most people just moved on when 2.0 first came out, lacking so many features of the 1.0 system. I guess it’s finally time for me to move on as well.

    I hate it when CEOs lie. That’s why we’re in a recession right now: the utter lack of honesty and transparency between businesses and customers.

  14. James Buckner February 5, 2009 at 3:58 pm #

    Hi, Rachel. Yes, I tried the HTML/Javascript plugin, but it did not function for me. I tried a couple of different simple code blocks, but the plugin did not enter them into my test page.

    If the plugin functionality can be fixed to allow me to use page-specific javascript, pbwiki will still be useful to me, even though I would have to make some significant modifications to another application to compensate for the loss of the classic editor.

    -James

  15. Scarbrow February 6, 2009 at 5:23 am #

    I also don’t like the forced change. I manage sryth.pbwiki.com, and we’re just a bunch of dedicated editors, of which the only one comfortable with the 2.0 interface is me, and even with that, since they talked me into trying the Classical editor, I haven’t used the point-and-click one more than the necessary minimum to make some tables. I’m afraid that if you really force us to upgrade without providing the Classical Editor to the 2.0 pbwikis, we’ll move to another provider.

  16. Katie February 6, 2009 at 2:13 pm #

    I think I would feel better about this if any of the people you say “love 2.0″ would actually post a message here. Every single comment is negative! I like the simplicity and ease of use of the current version and it sounds like the next one is way more complicated than I need.

  17. Richard Johnston February 7, 2009 at 1:48 pm #

    I am seriously unimpressed by the “official” answers about this. I’m not asking you for effort to develop v1.0, just to keep it is as it is. I have a number of features on my wikis tat DON’T WORK on v2.0 – I have tried – and all your “workarounds” are very tedious to implement, if indeed they work at all.

    You can bleat all you like about 2.0 being “better”, but from my viewpoint, and that of all my users, it quite simply isn’t.

    You used to claim it was all “simple”, well it certainly isn’t now, and your changes will force upon us a lot of unnecessary work.

  18. Kristine February 7, 2009 at 3:09 pm #

    While the transition may cause some friction for early adopters of PBwiki, the majority of our users have asked for more security, better organization and a cleaner interface.

    The features you see in 2.0 are a direct result of feedback from our users. If you have additional feedback or features that you would like to see, please tell us!

    We certainly don’t want to make it difficult to update, so if there are migration problems we’re here to help.

    You can email me at Kristine -at-pbwiki.com, or contact our support team via the help link on your wiki.

    -Kristine

  19. Bridget McManus February 7, 2009 at 3:22 pm #

    I am also very unhappy about being forced to upgrade. Our wikis for our educational non-profit organization are highly customized and will not look or function well for us once we are upgraded. It is very sad that we will probably be forced to move elsewhere – we have been long time users. Our organization would have been happy to pay to stay where we are – at PBwiki 1.0.

  20. Kristine February 7, 2009 at 3:29 pm #

    Richard,
    You mentioned that there are a number of features that don’t work after the migration. I will email you personally to see what those features are and if there is something I can help you with.

    -Kris

  21. Savvy February 7, 2009 at 9:13 pm #

    I personally will be unsubscribing both of my paid wikis and moving to another service. I know you administrators feel 2.0 is a better product; but to myself I find it more cluttered, and the navigation unsimplified. I strongly dislike the new position of the sidebar. I already upgraded one of my wikis to 2.0 a month back, and have been so unhappy with it, but so thrilled with my 1.0, I was planning to turn it back. Now knowing I will be forced to use a system so excessive it exceeds my needs to a point where it no longer meets them and simply confuses my requirements and expectations of how I want my material to display…
    Well, it’s simply just not worth it.

    Good by, PBwiki.

    Savvy.

  22. Jim February 7, 2009 at 9:41 pm #

    How am I possibly going to keep my wikis looking as they do now with this forced upgrade to 2.0. I upgraded one, personal wiki to experiment, and I see no way to turn off the display features I don’t want to appear. I used to use some scripts on the SideBar page to accomplish this. Take a look at Troop259 or PlanoKiwanis and tell me how I can possibly replicate the minimalist look and feel on the pseudo web pages I created with PB Wiki 1.0.

  23. Matthew Cooke February 8, 2009 at 9:46 am #

    I specifically switched to pbwiki due to the fact that the previous wiki I used went WYSIWYG. WYSIWYG editors are not good for heavy wiki users since they never work well and slow you down.

    I’m fine with the security, cleaner interface and any other features, but the killer feature for me is the ability to edit plain text wiki markup. I’m afraid that if I upgrade you may also have nerfed the plain text wiki editor – and that was the main reason I switched to pbwiki in the first place!

    Is the plain text wiki editor still there in this version 2 and if not is it possible to enable it as the default after an upgrade? I don’t want some WYSIWYG editor getting in the way and slowing down the editing or messing up the markup – basically I absolutely hate every WYSIWYG wiki editor I’ve ever used.

  24. Kiri February 8, 2009 at 4:56 pm #

    I will be cancelling my subscription to PBWiki on March 1st I suppose, and if you debit my paypal after that I’ll open a ticket with them.

    I “upgraded” once before and it sucked.

    I will not use your RTE. Period. We’ve got a Media Wiki install in preparation on a site we control and we’re out of here at the end of the month. Don’t bother trying to “help” us unless you are willing to let us continue coding our wiki in wiki code.

  25. Leedz February 9, 2009 at 2:56 pm #

    Nice to see that PBWiki not only doesn’t care about what its users actually want, but also silences dissent, as I’ve left two complaints here and both were deleted. At least it’s a fair illustration of how you run your business.

  26. Lachlan Hardy February 9, 2009 at 4:42 pm #

    Just wanted to add my voice to those asking for a plain text editor option in 2.0. Without it, I’ll be going elsewhere.

  27. kristine February 9, 2009 at 6:44 pm #

    Hey all,

    We’re thankful for your honest feedback but we won’t post any profanity on the blog – not in our posts or in the comments.

    Thanks for keeping it clean!

    Kristine

  28. Leedz February 9, 2009 at 7:35 pm #

    That’s funny, because only one of my posts had only one word that could vaguely be considered profane. The other post was simply silenced because you don’t like it.

    Liars.

  29. Lorna February 10, 2009 at 9:57 am #

    PBwiki 1.0’s editor is very simple, and easy to use.
    Please let us have the choice to decide if we want to upgrade or not.
    PBwiki 2.0 is too complicated and has too many features I won’t even use. The simple editor in 1.0 is very easy to use!

    Please let us keep our 1.0 PBwikis!

  30. Michael Brutsch February 10, 2009 at 12:32 pm #

    1.0 users:

    I have been researching wikis that actually support wiki markup, and WikiDot seems committed to using markup and not WYSIWYG. Their markup is very comprehensive; the printed doc is 16 pages long. It’s pretty different from PBwiki, so there’s a learning curve, but we’ve still got a month before they destroy our existing wikis. For those users who used the Widget Library, WikiDot have a huge number of builtin features, including many things we’ve been asking PBwiki to do for 3 years! If anyone else is interested, email me, and we can discuss developing a migration strategy.

    Also, if anyone would care to repost this on GetSatisfaction, that’d be great: they banned me for complaining just this sort of thing.

    Thanks,
    Michael Brutsch
    – Co-Author, Widget Library
    – Guy Fawkes, first user ever banned from GetSatisfaction

  31. Michael Brutsch February 10, 2009 at 12:33 pm #

    Sorry, I forgot my email: pbwiki@brutsch.com

  32. Kevin Driscoll February 10, 2009 at 4:52 pm #

    I too am really disappointed in the mandatory migration, and sadly will be finding a new home for my wikis. I worked at Yahoo for five years, where we used Twiki extensively, and I and many other in my orgs got hooked on wikis and the FAST AND EASY editing it provides! So I was happy to find PBWiki and have recommended it to many.

    But I’m not going to abandon the wiki-style editing. As a product guy myself I understand the economic pressure to not support two systems, and if PBWiki’s business is going toward WYSIWYG, I guess I understand, but there remains a large market for regular-wiki-editor products and I’ll be looking into them ASAP.

  33. Xanthir, FCD February 10, 2009 at 7:25 pm #

    Blarg. I’m… not too happy about having to transition to a visual editor. I work best in code, and have used markup syntaxes of various kinds for a *long* time.

    On the other hand, as a system maintainer myself, I understand Chris Yeh’s point about maintaining two codebases.

    Obviously the visual editor is more powerful when you are creating complex layouts, but have you considered a simple markup language like Markdown? No need to constantly maintain something, since the language is stable, and it *looks* like plain text, which is good for us authors who just want to put together something simple.

  34. Yair February 11, 2009 at 1:24 am #

    My wiki depends on being open to editing by any reader, without requiring registration. I am currently using PBWiki 1.0 and an ‘Invite Key’. This is not very comfortable as it still requires the user to enter his name and email. It seems the 2.0 version actually requires registration, as well. There once was a time when a simple password was all that was required, no name or email. The security measures that increase with time are preventing me from using PBWiki for my purposes.

    If PBWiki 2.0 does not allow random people browsing the wiki to edit it freely, it will lose its appeal to me. Requiring registration, especially with an email address, is unacceptable. I don’t see how to allow free access in PBWiki 2.0, and if this functionality is not allowed I will move away to another provider comes March.

  35. Mary LeCompte February 11, 2009 at 5:15 am #

    Yeah, I always new pbwiki was too good to be true and eventually would change. I tried upgrading one of my wikis to see if it “will look exactly the same” It doesn’t. I have spent hours setting up several wikis, one of which gets 1000 hits a month now. I DON’T WANT TO CHANGE.

  36. shadowblack February 11, 2009 at 6:54 am #

    “We’re thankful for your honest feedback but we won’t post any profanity on the blog – not in our posts or in the comments.”

    There was no profanity in my post either, but it still got deleted. Oh, well, who cares? The wiki I help edit is moving to another place, so it no longer matters. If you insist on ignoring all the complaints against the “upgrade”, fine by me – you’re the ones losing users (including paying ones)…

  37. Joel February 11, 2009 at 11:11 am #

    After reading all the comments, I’m not very excited to move all our wikis to 2.0. Since I work in a school district that has used PB Wiki extensively for professional development AND students, it would be nice to have an “education” version that meets the needs of students.

    One of the best things about “classic” was having ONE passcode that all students could use to login and start editing. When you’ve got 1st graders trying to remember different usernames/passcodes, it becomes nearly impossible for teachers who are new to wikis to manage.

    And the clean interface of the Classic version made it much easier for students to navigate. Your 2.0 version seems geared to more advanced wiki users, with advanced features. What about those who just want something simple and easy to use? Just looking at a 2.0 wiki vs Classic is intimidating for those who’ve never used a wiki before.

    PLEASE think about your users, especially educators, who have grown accustomed to using PB Wiki’s Classic interface. Change is inevitable, I know, but offering a choice is also important.

  38. Mark Beatty February 11, 2009 at 1:58 pm #

    My main pbwiki site: askaway.pbwiki.com
    is a user manual and I and my colleagues went to a great deal of trouble to get the look and feel just right. I do understand that 2.0 has some nice enhancements, but we really need to retain the layout and navigation interface that we created in v.1 that serves as an important production tool. Please allow us the option to choose our environment. Thanks.

  39. kristine February 11, 2009 at 3:07 pm #

    Hi Joel,

    PBwiki 2.0 educator wikis have enhanced sharing features like classroom accounts that allow students without email to log in. The wiki creator can automatically generate these accounts, which include a print out and an emailed copy of all names/passwords.

    This makes it super easy to see exactly what student edited your wiki. Check out the details here: http://tinyurl.com/5nd8ar

    I will send you an email with more details.

    -Kristine

  40. kristine February 11, 2009 at 3:25 pm #

    Mark,

    I looked at your wiki askaway.pbwiki.com and you should have no problems with the update. The layout and navigation will look the same and your graphics will transition as well.

    -Kristine

  41. Jamie February 11, 2009 at 5:51 pm #

    This is a truly terrible decision. There is a reason why I have not and do not want to upgrade to 2.0. I have seen it, I have worked with it, and I do not like it. 1.0’s layout is far more pleasing and allows for more shoulder room. The text editor is far easier to work with, and the ability to use an ‘invite key’ without forcing others to register is very nice. I have worked long and hard to build the wiki I have and to create a pleasing layout for it – a layout which is not compatible with the new system.

    To say I’m upset would be a sore understatement.

  42. sam February 12, 2009 at 11:45 am #

    Like someone else said, the feature that is most important to me from 1.0 is the ability to enable editing with just a shared password (invite key). Once other users are required to register, I can’t use this anymore. If you can add back the option to just use a shared password in 2.0, I can keep using it. Thanks!

  43. Soren February 12, 2009 at 12:05 pm #

    Lots of strong words. I’ve got three wikis and am hoping that v2.0 makes it easier for others to edit mine. So far, I’ve been pretty unsuccessful in, for example, getting non-technical family members to contribute to our family wiki. On the other hand, if the magic URLs I gave them to log in stop working, that will be a pain (esp. since my grandma’s home page is one of those magic URLs :).

    I’ve been holding back on upgrading because it wasn’t clear that Safari would be supported (I read somewhere early on that it wasn’t and today still can’t find an information about the browser requirements). My first WYSIWYG wiki experience (Apple’s OS X Server wiki) went through some growing pains until both Safari and the wiki software got their bugs out.

    One thing that could be clearer is whether I can “upgrade” a wiki to the 2.0 editor and then take it back. Also, I’ve poked around for a public 2.0 wiki to play with — so I can see how I like it (I’d rather not create one just to play) … but so far haven’t found such a thing.

    Vaguely related, I can’t back up right now, which is making me antsy:
    http://getsatisfaction.com/pbwiki/topics/backup_insists_you_must_be_admin_but_i_use_invite_keys_only

    I guess we’ll see what happens come March!

    -Soren

  44. Susan February 12, 2009 at 3:45 pm #

    I have tried 2.0 and it was awful. I could probably adjust, but my committee won’t, and the change will set us back 6 months, I am guessing. I just got to the point where I have convinced my entire committee to actually use a wiki at all, and 1.0 is so easy and user-friendly, that they have come around.

    Now with the upgrade, I may lose them again. I think I will change to a different wiki if this is really going through. I can’t lose 6 months of team work.

  45. Jacob February 12, 2009 at 8:18 pm #

    This is probably one of the most negative commentaries I have ever read. Where is the positive feedback? There is none. Terrible.

  46. Mary LeCompte February 13, 2009 at 7:06 am #

    Kristine,
    Can you assure me that bullrunlibrary.pbwiki.com will look and feel the same after the forced upgrade?
    Specifically, the double sidebar, the drop down menus and the logo
    Thanks,
    Mary Lecompte

  47. Leedz February 13, 2009 at 8:52 am #

    I wouldn’t count on it, since we’ve already caught her lying twice.

  48. kristine February 13, 2009 at 10:21 am #

    Hey Mary,

    The layout on 2.0 is different than 1.0. Instead of a double sidebar, the sidebar and recent activities are separate elements in the right hand panel.

    If you are using html or java script on your old wiki you can use that in PBwiki 2.0. Use the java script/htlm plugin to insert the code for your drop down menus. (Here is an example on a demo wiki: http://onlinelearningdemo.pbwiki.com).

    Your java script will not immediately transition – wiki admins need to use the new plugin and approve the use of that specific code. (JavaScript can be used maliciously and may also cause unexpected behavior. We noted this on 1.0 wikis as well.)

    It looks like bullrunlibrary.pbwiki.com is a free wiki, so while you will be able to chose from 9-different color schemes (4 more than 1.0), you won’t be able to upload your Library’s logo.

    -Kristine

  49. Mary LeCompte February 13, 2009 at 10:54 am #

    So, basically, no. Bullrunlibrary.pbwiki.com will not look anything like what I spent many hours creating. The 1000+ hits/month that I get will be disappointed I’m sure. And all of the people I promoted pbwiki to in the classes I had will also be hit with this and disappointed also.
    Let’s see…. thanks?
    Mary Lecompte

    Oh, and I don’t need 4 more color schemes, I just need the one I have.

  50. Beverly Long February 13, 2009 at 11:54 am #

    I too am sorry about the change. I work with four wikis. It is often difficult to get folks to partiipate in the wikis, but over time they came on board. Now they have to relearn and create their own accounts to participate. A setback! I also will miss the clean look, the design, of the 1.0.

  51. kristine February 13, 2009 at 2:23 pm #

    Soren,

    Safari is completely supported for PBwiki 2.0. The WYSISYG editor has been vastly improved -included cleaner bulleting and numbering. (Here is a list of changes in 2.0: http://pbwiki.com/content/pbwiki-2-user-guide)

    As for your questions about the magic link, this was very interesting. Our current authentication system should not give any user immediate access to the wiki, unless that person has already logged in with their personal PBwiki account. What should happen is that any user signing in with a magic URL:

    a) The migration wizard will ask you which users you would like to transition. Those users without PBwiki accounts will receive an email asking them to create an account to access your 2.0 wiki.

    For those users you don’t chose to transition and who try to access your wiki using the magic url:

    b) On wiki with public editing feature turned on your grandmother would taken to the publicly available pages of that wiki but not have write access until they click edit, create an account and log in.

    c) If on a private wiki with Request Access turned on, your grandmother would be sent to the login page where they can request access, or log in with her existing account.

    Secondly, the reason that you did not see the option to transition back is because the update is a permanent move.

    Finally, the major reasons we are moving away from invite keys is the lack of security you have with a common login. It looks like Clif is working with you to help you back up your wiki.

    -Kristine

  52. kristine February 13, 2009 at 2:40 pm #

    Hi Sam,

    Unfortunately 2.0 wikis no longer have a shared password. Instead you can turn on public editing, so that anyone can edit your public wiki.

    Our largest community sites have been using public editing for a few months now and have been really successful. Check out:
    http://barcamp.pbwiki.com/
    http://twitter4teachers.pbwiki.com/
    http://twitter.pbwiki.com/

    -Kristine

  53. Leedz February 13, 2009 at 3:35 pm #

    When are you going to finally get it into your ridiculously tiny skull that no one is asking you for help on how to get accounts for all their users, and that everyone is saying that NO ONE WANTS USER ACCOUNTS? You’re not only liars, you’re also idiots.

    Individual accounts may be more secure, but you know what? We’re big kids here. If we want to take the chance of a less secure system because it better serves our needs, that’s OUR choice, not yours — especially when you told us that it WOULD be our choice. Lies, lies, everywhere.

    As I said in one of my unfairly deleted posts, if driving off your userbase was your goal, you seem to be having phenomenal success.

  54. anon February 14, 2009 at 10:02 am #

    I think it’s absolutely hilarious that kristine doesn’t have a CLUE that the issue here isn’t “we need help upgrading”, it’s “we want the choice to upgrade, and if you’re going to force us to upgrade, we will leave.”

    as they say, you need customers to run a business, and as leedz said, you’re doing an amazing job of alienating your consumer base. the way this keeps up, you might end up where washington mutual is right now.

  55. Jamie February 14, 2009 at 4:23 pm #

    I think you’re missing the point with the shared password/magic link/whatever here. I don’t want my wiki wide open so just ANYONE can edit it. I want only select people to be able to access those tools, but I want to be able to allow them to do so without being forced to register.

  56. Brian February 14, 2009 at 9:47 pm #

    pbwiki 2 is just not going to work for me. I am afraid its going to put me out of business.

    I don’t like it

  57. Vizi February 15, 2009 at 9:44 am #

    Just to give some perspective here – I would like to keep 1.0 too, because 2.0 feels like a step backward on some features (no plain text editing etc). But since all my pbwikis are free, and 2.0 is still better than all the other wikifarms out there, I don’t feel like I have real complaints. Maybe this update is needed to keep Pbwiki going through hard times, I don’t know. I’m just happy Pbwiki exists, be it 1.0 or 2.0.

  58. Scarbrow February 15, 2009 at 4:37 pm #

    Well, since I left my comment here seems that a lot more people have complained as well, either for the wikicode editor or for the invite keys. I’m one of the wikicode complainers myself. Luckily, Wikia has accepted to host our gaming wiki and migration is half-completed. They have the anonymous editing, the wikicode, even a WYSIWYG editor if you want to use it, but they DON’T FORCE you to use it.

    My advice to you people at pbwiki: even if you were so sure of your position, even if your policy is clear, even if your governors have signed the change, listen to the people. People came to pbwiki because others told them it was good. Now you’re getting a lot of bad press, and very quickly. Beware of bad fame: it tends to last a lot more than it’s deserved.

  59. Chowder February 15, 2009 at 7:12 pm #

    Pbwiki 2 looks bad. This is bad change. I like Pbwiki the way it is!!

  60. Kiri February 17, 2009 at 5:22 pm #

    It’s interesting how many other people will be leaving because of the RTE. Sure you guys don’t want to reconsider?

  61. Pam February 18, 2009 at 3:46 pm #

    I’ve been using and paying for PBwiki Gold for three years as an educational tool in my public school. I am frustrated that we are being forced to change in the middle of the school year.
    Especially in the K-12 universe, continuity is vitally important. Because the look & feel has changed, it’s going to be a logistical challenge, retraining 900 students (who all know & edit using the invite key) and a faculty of 80 to use this new tool. I’ve spent the last three years training everyone and feel like I have to start at ground zero in March.
    Is there any way that you could postpone the mandatory “upgrade” to summer?
    As it stands now, I am planning to find a new wiki tool that respects educational institutions over my Feb. break.

  62. Allyson February 19, 2009 at 8:48 am #

    What if you are not the creator of the wiki but want to do the upgrade? I just went to the migration URL and it told me I have to be the creator to do the upgrade and an email was sent to the creator. That’s not going to help me at all because the creator is long since gone for all three wikis that we are currently using. I don’t want to wait to see what it will look like and/or run the risk of having the people who really need the content unable to access it.

  63. kristine February 20, 2009 at 11:35 am #

    Hey Allyson,

    On March 2nd we will begin to allow all wiki administrators (in addition to wiki creators) to migrate their wikis. If you are an administrator and would like to migrate before March 2nd, please contact support by clicking the help link on your wiki.

    -Kristine

  64. Olga March 12, 2009 at 4:39 pm #

    Just came here because I was stuck/confused and couldn’t find anywhere to ask for help.

    I’ve been using PBwiki for 14 months now, and I was very satisfied with how simple the editor was. I used my wiki to manage a schedule for several things, but now with the new complex editor I am confused at how to use it and was wondering if it’s possible to allow tables to be created by using the | | coding used before?

  65. morganya March 26, 2009 at 10:50 pm #

    Thanks, Michael Brutsch, for the pointer to WikiDot! A list of other wiki resources is here, for those looking to migrate away from Pbwiki to be able to keep a WikiText editor. I, too, am attached to WikiText editing and rely on taking notes locally (sometimes classrooms don’t have wifi) and copying the text into the wiki later.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wiki_farm

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 88 other followers

%d bloggers like this: