Open collaborative editing is a useful feature enabled by wiki software, but I've never actually heard anyone claim it is core to the definition; it's more that it's the killer app enabled by the quick editing model embraced by WikiBase and the systems that ran on WikiBase after Cunningham made it available.

You can definitely have a wiki of one user. And it's extremely common for organizations to have a wiki of only authorized users. Although in a high trust circumstance, there's really a good reason to lock users who can read the wiki out from editing the wiki as long as edits are audited.

(Regardless of all of that, I'm fairly certain the deepwiki output is editable?)

It's just the name of the service, as imagined by its creator, Cognition Labs; it's called a "wiki" because it creates wiki-style documentation similar to Wikipedia's format. There are always people who complain about everything. I'm successfully using the service since a few month and even applied it to my own compiler projects, and I think it's pretty good; of course there are errors, but from my experience far less than the (mostly outdated, if available at all) design documentation you usually find for open-source projects.

It's not "just the name of the service". The Deepwiki people are either morons or assholes or both. Complaining that someone is debasing the definition of the word "wiki" by applying it to something that isn't a wiki is not a trifling complaint.

Describing a topic-constrained encyclopedia as a "wiki" on the basis that Wikipedia is a thing is like calling coffee "ice" because iced coffee exists.

Or a quickly-editable website a "wiki" because it's the Hawaiian word for "quick."

Which these things aren't.

But congratulations on grasping what a wiki is, I guess.

Are they not editable? They do appear to have an edit button.

Are they editable?