33

The indieweb wiki makes a distinction between posts, pages and wiki pages. It is not a bad taxonomy, but I think that the lines are more blurry than such a mutually-exclusive-collectively-exhaustive categorization allows for.

The difference between page and wiki-page boils mostly down to editing and versioning. I would agree, that being able to edit from the browser is an essential characteristic of a wikipage. In-built version control on the other hand, while nice to have, is not necessary for having a wiki. Tiddlywiki for example does not have it, and I would argue very much for its wiki qualities. Also: I have a few pages (my now-page) that expose the possibility to browse older versions without being wikipages. And in general as this is a (mostly) static website, all pages are under revision control in a git repository.

As differentiation criterion between page and post the indieweb wiki says that articles (as a subtype pars-pro-toto for post) typically display the published date, whereas pages don't. Which I for example practice rather differently. In the beginning I didn't really include meta-data like the date of publication in any article, today I do in all of them, also I display the date on many pages (albeit not on all). On pages it is often prefixed with "Last updated", which implies indeed that the page is intended to be edited (at least semi-)regularly.

Then the indieweb wiki writes: The URL of the page (typically pages will have URLs without date components, whereas other posts usually contain some date components in the URL like year, month, day). For my newer post-type content that is true, I include dates in the URL, but mostly because it eases the file-organization for me locally. I didn't always and you'll find a few posts without any date hint in the URL. With pages: by my personal convention the index.html of any directory is always the most current revision. The previous revisions get a file in the format YYYY-MM-DD.html and a previous/next link (so no random access, only linear browsing).

Next criterion: Whether the entry is contained within feeds (pages typically are not added to the list of blog posts, and appear only in navigation or not at all, e.g. are unlisted) - maybe the "typically" is the give-away here. But I have quite a few post types that are not included in the feed. And I have seen people treat also their about/now/contact pages as post types, where updates are published to the feed. So this is a bit of a grey area. Maybe true for the majority, but doesn't cover the edge cases.

So I think the primitive of a website is the individual page. If it is updated it has an inherent time component, regardless of how much that is made explicit. If the publishing system, be that a CMS or a Wiki, helps with version control: that is great. But version control can be treated as an orthogonal problem.