This page is a demonstration of my software. The interface works, the WikiText works and I've checked it for typographical errors and I can confirm that you won't find any stray commas or split infinitives or feral apostrophe's here so there's absolutely no need to make any copy edits to this draft but feel free to have a little play around with it anyway. Add stuff, delete stuff change stuff. Have a field-day.^[1] You can edit this page without changing the draft. Go ahead. Delete something. Type some random text. When you've finished press enter.

Just don't delete this sentence or you will break WikiNative's website.

Scroll the light purple comment boxes on the right. Click on a comment. The draft is on an independent scroll but it will align itself to the centre of the comment and vice versa. The comments never get cluttered so add as many as you like.

If you're reading this on a smartphone in portrait mode then I advise you to rotate your device by 90º.

A comment records a question or observation. A suggestion records proposed wording alongside the existing words. Neither action changes the draft by itself. James reviews the discussion and makes the editorial decisions. This separation lets a client propose a correction without needing access to the article's source code.

Comments on a circular scroll. My draft has a defined beginning and end, but its comments form a circle. Keep scrolling through the discussions and you return to the first one. Add a comment and the circle grows; resolve one and it gets smaller. The draft stays where you left it until you choose a passage or discussion.

The longer discussion explains how to read a complete thread without moving the draft. It includes a reply as well as the original comment, so the difference between a passage, a discussion and a reply can be seen in one place. The short discussions elsewhere on the page show that the same controls work when only a few words need attention.

The Your sources page provides one intake area for files, folders, ZIP archives and links. Original material is saved privately to the selected project. Word documents and spreadsheets can also supply links for a separate bulk import. Saving material means that it has arrived for review; it does not mean that a claim has been approved or that the material is suitable for an article.^[2]

An uploaded document and the source it describes are different things. The original file remains available even when text processing or link extraction needs attention. The intake screen distinguishes saved originals from unfinished processing and identifies the item that needs a retry. This makes a mixed batch easier to recover without asking the client to start again.

Source records keep their project association and provenance. A link extracted from a spreadsheet can retain its sheet and cell origin; a link extracted from a Word document can retain its document location. These details help a reviewer find the original context. They do not turn an adjacent note or a document's visible link text into a verified fact.

The original source still needs to be read for the claim being considered. A citation supplies a route to evidence, while a discussion records what the reviewer wants to check. Keeping those roles visible is useful when several sources refer to the same event or when a document contains material that belongs to more than one part of a draft.

The Your images page keeps image originals and their rights evidence with the project. Its image checks help James review a proposed use; a file being saved is not a declaration that it can be used on Wikipedia. The fair-use rationale generator is a separate, URL-only route for preparing a logo rationale from the public page where the copyright holder published the logo. A rationale remains a draft for review and does not publish the image or grant permission.

The WikiNative logo in this page's infobox is an already-public brand asset used for this authorised software demonstration. Its presence here is not an example of a free licence or a decision that a non-free logo qualifies for a Wikipedia article.

I know what you're wondering. You're reading this and you're thinking 'what about the internal wiki-links? They're the best bit. Well yes, indeed they are. In-fact The Wiki-links are the reason it took me so long to build this platform. You see, red links don't look great, a digital encyclopaedia needs a few red links scattered about to mark potential subjects but no one wants a whole page full of red marks. On the other hand, I didn't want to send my clients back to Wikipedia every time they clicked on a Wiki-link, what if they end up going blue link surfing on Wikipedia for several days while I'm stuck in Shropshire waiting for their comments and revisions? So I only went and built my own encyclopaedia didn't I? Well, technically it builds itself. I just give its gattitos (virtual editors named after famous cats) a few ground rules, you know, no scratching the sofa, no bringing voles inside the house and no letting the encyclopaedia turn into a recursive knowledge reactor. The usual stuff, really. Luckily, they spend most of the day sleeping. I just let them loose when I'm bored or when there's a client draft that needs testing in a client's private SimSpace. Just like WikiNative Studio, my encyclopaedia runs on the open-source MediaWiki architecture, and I borrowed a few of Wikipedia's article's to get the party started but that's where the similarities end. For starters, there's only one biography of a live human on there and there's no prizes for guessing who they wrote it about. I banned the gattitos from writing creating articles about living people after that little debacle. Then I banned them from making pages about active companies or current events because I went a bit power-mad. Having your own encyclopaedia to play with will do that to you and if I gave them free reign over current subjects it would be like dropping a sack of mentos into a bathtub of diet coke inside a mentos warehouse next to the Irn-Bru factory. I've also capped it at 100,000 articles and so far they've only managed 60,000 articles. Now while sixty thousand articles might not sound like a lot by today's standards, it's more than enough to resolve most of the temporary red links in my client's private draft-spaces and ScratchSpaces and the rest of the red-links get resolved when I upload the page to Wikipedia (the code is exactly the same). All in all, having my own private and public Wiki-encyclopaedias has given me the perfect test-site for article ideas and WikiText. Here's a WikiTable I made earlier.

Tilcayo Cats: categorisation and applied ontology^[3]

Part of the system	How it works
Contents	Every subject category has a route back to Contents.
Ten knowledge classes	Science; Health; Humanities; Culture and sport; Religion and belief; Government, politics and law; Economy; Information and education; People; Lists.
Home classification	One home identifies an article’s main place; links to other subjects do not give it another home.
Main parents	Categories have a principal route through the hierarchy: Physics sits beneath Science.
Additional parents	A category can connect subjects: Food and drink sits under Culture and also links to Health.
Coverage checks	A missing title is a lead for investigation; the subject may already appear under another name or within a section.

The following references demonstrate different citation formats. The works are real, but they are not presented as independent coverage of WikiNative Studio or as evidence of its notability. Their bibliographic details are kept separate from claims about the software.

The book example points to Project Gutenberg's digital edition of Alice's Adventures in Wonderland, by Lewis Carroll. This reference identifies the digital edition rather than inventing a publication date for the original book.^[4]

The journal example identifies Gunther Eysenbach's paper, "Citation Advantage of Open Access Articles", published in PLoS Biology in 2006. The DOI, volume, issue and article number provide several ways to identify the same work. No conclusion from that paper is being used to make a claim about this software.^[5]

The additional examples are an Internet standard^[6], a W3C recommendation^[7], a government report^[8], a dataset^[9] and versioned software documentation^[10].

A reference can be reused without copying its full citation into the reference list again. This sentence returns to the source-intake page already cited above.^[2] The repeated number demonstrates named-reference reuse, while the book and journal entries show how different types of publication are formatted together.

The software keeps discussion and publication separate. A saved source, a proposed sentence and an accepted change are different records of work. Uploading a file does not publish an article, and leaving a comment does not authorise additional work. A reviewer still needs to decide whether a source supports the wording and whether that wording belongs in the draft.

This last section provides a passage near the end of the page for the final paired discussion. It also gives the reader a place to return after trying the table, citation preview and external links. The demonstration can be revisited without needing to submit a change or complete a form.