Some Wiki Thoughts And Resources

As I was asked to facilitate discussion today on how wikis and RSS can be used for organizations to share knowledge, I'll begin with a few resource links and some thoughts on wikis. I'm going to do what I can today, but I just had a new niece born in the middle of last night - so you'll have to forgive me if I don't have as much time throughout the day as I'd like.

Definition of a Wiki

Here's mine: A wiki is a web site that anyone authorized may change easily (without programming knowledge), where all previous versions of each page are viewable at any time, and where interested parties can receive automatic notification whenever changes are made. Wikis are good for collaborative document and knowledge development.

This definition clearly focuses on what some of the medium's strong points are, in my mind. Some more thoughts on wikis appear here after the below link list below.

Reasons to Use a Wiki

1. collaborate while group members are in different places at different times

2. automatically keep a history of how your collaboration has unfolded

3. centralize your resources (eg. don't swap emails in your inbox swamp, don't wonder where the newest version of the Doc is -it's on the wiki, don't search your email inbox for mail pertaining to a particular discussion, go to that's discussion topic's page in the wiki)

4. it's pretty easy. the learning curve for wiki use is not insignificant, but it is much smaller than many other forms of higher-level web use

5. why not use a forum? maybe you should, but if you are looking for lots of flexibility, easy interlinking of topic pages, and to grow a collaborative product and it's history (mission statement, press release) then a wiki may be the way to go.

Wiki Links of Interest:

Interviews with Ross Mayfield

Why Wiki?

Kill your email - WikiWiki!

Ross Mayfield is the head of the wiki providing company Social Text, the most successful wiki providers in the corporate world. He's also a very charming guy.

Example wikis

Wikipedia
The largest, most well known wiki in the world. Click around the various features there, it's amazing!

Networked Learning Wiki
A great example of a wiki used to support a learning event and presentation about a social/technological phenomenon.

,a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/">Sourcewatch
A public wiki focused on a particular topic (corporate misdeeds) and also a good research resource.

See also the discussion on wikis in this forum yesterday.

A Few Thoughts on Wikis

1. A wiki page should never be taken on face value, it is an organism with a history - a discussion. In order to maximize the value you can get out of any given wiki page, you should consider:

a. how long has a certain claim or item on the page been present compared to the entire life of the page?

b. how many changes have been made to the page in its history? Lots of changes may reflect a robust product of community deliberation - or it may reflect a subject of controversy that may have been changed back and forth by people with strong beliefs. Neither situation is bad, it's just good to understand what you are looking at.

c. how many people have participated in a page's development? what else have those people worked on in the wiki?

d. are participants in the evolution of a page bringing high-value contributions to its history? (e.g. are they describing their changes in the history, are they signing in to make changes, are their personal profile pages clear on who they are, can they support their changes and contributions with credible links off site?)

2. On a public wiki it is your job to remove wiki spam. It's just like weeding the garden. Occaisional spam removal is essential to demonstrating that people are engaged with the wiki and thus visitors can take it all the more seriously and feel encouraged to add to it themselves.

3. On a private, or internal wiki, it is important to have some one in charge of overseeing the group's use of the wiki. Some one who knows about wikis in general and the particular program being used to help trouble shoot, to remind users to do things like sign in and describe thier changes, to print out copies of key pages for physical meetings if need be.

4. To be able to easily change the content of what's on a web page is, for many people, a very new experience. Non-technical people are trained to see themselves as passive consumers of static web pages, and a wiki is a major transition for them. Furthermore, people with certain life experiences may have been taught that they are not entitled to change the contents of a discussion going on in a public medium.

Ok, there's some thoughts and resources. Now I'm going to put up a post about RSS in a minute. I hope these spur discussion.

I want to mention that public wikis like wikipedia are fundamentally different from wikis that are internal to an organization or to a community. Closed or small community or organizational wikis don't have the issues of wiki spam, vandalism, etc that plague open, public wikis. Small wikis can include trusted information, and can be built in ways that are based on and strengthen the relationships between wiki community members. On the other hand, open wikis can grow much faster and larger and can benefit a wider audience. Other thoughts on the differences between open and closed wikis?

Thank you for this!! We had been trying to figure out the best way to organize our advocacy-related source information in a clear, yet organic way. The wiki approach seems to be just the ticket, and our site host (Dreamhost ) even has a one-click install of Media Wiki that I'm going to give a test spin. Thanks, again!

In response to the public vs. private wikis, one thing to consider is that it takes a considerable amount more buy in per person for an organization to get the most out of a private wiki. If folks outside the organization can't be utilized to populate the wiki and make it useful, then that all rests on the shoulders of the group's own members. Of course some matters are only appropriate to discuss and work out on an internal wiki - the point being just to prepare to need to maximize buy in for it to be as useful as public wikis can be.

I think an internal WIKI would work quite well for a handbook for new employees to an organisation. All existing staff members could contribute to it, and they could make serious or lighthearted contributions eg where you can get the best sandwich nearby, or how much annual leave you get in a year.

This is a great example of where wiki-fears could meet wiki-possibilities. I can just imagine people saying "we can't have just any random employee editing the handbook!" One answer being, of course, to assign each employee a user name and password and only allow edits to be made by logged in users. Then you know exactly who is making what contributions and people will contribute accordingly. See, no need to freak out! Unfortunately, the psychosis of control is so intense, at least in the US, that many people will just be unable to use a wiki because of it.

Marshall -
I think that the need to control who edits in a wiki makes a lot of sense and isn't just control psychosis. The employee manual project is a great example of that.
Suppose someone just doubles the number of vacation days people are entitled to. Its now in the official company manual. Ooops. Knock another $100,000 of the budget!

I think if wikis are used for critical projects, someone needs to be in charge of the document. They need to be automatically informed when a change is made. The need to be able to see WHO made the change, and they need the ability to roll it back. The incredibly inexpensive wiki service Editme provides all this.

Michael,

Looks like the link to EditMe wasn't created properly. Here's the link again:

EditMe

At first glance it seems like yet another hosted wiki service. How's it different from other hosted wiki services that exist out there?

Thanks,
Clement

For those who have not used a wiki before and would like to try it without installing anything or signing up for a web service account, I would highly recommend the following:

TiddlyWiki
GTDTiddlyWiki - a specific implementation of TiddlyWiki

Both are essentially a feature rich wiki that are fully contained in a single HTML file. All you have to do is to save the HTML file from the website onto your own computer and you can begin creating and editing information in a wiki-sort-a-way. You can even post the file on a web server and makes it a public wiki. In fact, there are many public websites that are based on TiddlyWiki (see TiddlyWiki's website for a list of links).

I've been using one on my USB flash drive as a personal notebook and am loving it. The build in search and tagging feature allows information to be organized and retrieved in a way that was not posible for me before.

Cheers,
Clement

Clement - Tiddlywiki and especially GTDtiddlywiki are great little tools - with a beautiful bloglike interface - I also used it as a personal notebook for a while - but how does it handle multiple users if posted publically as you recommend? It does not reread itself unles you prompt it to refresh, so you could trash another user's additions. Or has it been changed to deal with this somehow?

I think Marshall and Michael make very relevant points about control and fear. Open editing of a wiki need not mean lack of accountability. Editing an employee handbook is a perfect example of this control dynamic at work. Having an open wiki environment where any employee can make any change does not mean that change becomes fact. You can have both an open environment where any employee is encouraged to contribute and someone who is accountable for the end product. It's quite easy really. Someone is assigned to monitor the 'recent changes' as they happen and that person validates/corrects them as they come in. Any employee who continues to make ridiculous edits can be locked out, others should still be encouraged to contribute.

Maybe it's our litigous culture in the US, I think there is a real fear of opening up or trying something new due to perceived lack of control. It is pereception, as control very much exists in a wiki environment. It's just a matter of understanding how this control works. My .02.

Clement wrote:

---

EditMe

At first glance it seems like yet another hosted wiki service. How's it different from other hosted wiki services that exist out there?

---

What I like about it is its great simplicity. Takes no time to learn to use, has three security levels, does not have a host of optional services to figure out, has a nice fully formatted editor, and is always adding new features. Supports Style Sheets, includes, templates, all sorts of features to let you create a real site. Can be used for dedicated wiki projects, or as a "poor mans CMS".

Costs $4.95/month for a starter account. We are currently using two accounts internally to develop some ideas on.

Interesting the CMS has not been discussed at all as a Web2.0 tool here. They are another path into the read/write web.

JotSpot http://jotspot.com is a hosted wiki that includes applications (like calendaring) that can make wikis more useful

SocialText http://socialtext.com is a hosted wiki that includes blogs, and other nifty features.

OK - what is the difference between a hosted wiki and one that is not hosted?
I can see some applications for using a wiki for our library but we don't have any money to spend.
So, like Blogs, are there free wiki services out there?
Also, can you recommend some good informational websites on setting up and using wikis?
Thanks!

Marshall, great introduction to Wikis and excellent resources!

I couldn't resist adding this image that I found in
flickr that illustrates what a wiki is.

John Udell created a fantastic
screencast showing and explaining wikis.

Here's the description:
Today's screencast traces the evolution of Wikipedia's Heavy metal umlaut page. I noticed it when both Tim Bray and David Weinberger pointed to it, but the page actually dates back to April 15, 2003.

It's a wonderfully silly topic, but my point is somewhat serious too. The 8.5-minute screencast turns the change history of this Wiki page into a movie, scrolls forward and backward along the timeline of the document, and follows the development of several motifs. Creating this animated narration of a document's evolution was technically challenging, but I think it suggests interesting possibilities.