History: Myths on wikis
Preview of version: 3
"If you build it, they will come" and other myths about wikis.
Everyone at this conference knows something about wikis, and is probably heavily involved with one or another.
And probably all of us at some point has been asked "can you help me build my wiki?" Often from someone who has some sort of mistaken idea about how the technology works, how the culture works, or both. Wikipedia is responsible for many of these misconceptions--people assume that Wikipedia is the archetypical wiki, rather than an aberration. Some of these misconceptions come from the press's misconceptions of Wikipedia. Others from general studies of "Web 2.0", "crowdsourcing", "the cloud", and internet culture. In this session we tried to collect all the myths we could think of (and why they're myths). We also identified some opportunities lurking in these misconceptions.
Myths:
"If you build it, they will come."
(For those who don't get the reference, it comes from the movie Field of Dreams, and this is really the only part of the movie people remember. For good reason.)
Wikipedia is a terrible influence
IWBITC is not self apparent
When social effects are complicated people wait and see
Much harder if competing with other systems
people dont know how governance works
more structure is better. Sometimes best to be organic
Wikis are really goed for social networks
Community building is easy
you need a community to dirve a wiki
wiki can do everything well
Wikipedia is anarchy
_NEXT PAGE__
Wikipedia is a monolith
Someone is in charge / shoudl be in charge
contributors are motivated by the whole - induvidual motives play no role
Wikis automatically remove hierarchy
One size fits all - mediawiki ideal for everything, some times cant even be csutomzied
Everyone has to buy into the whole thing - perhaps just buy in just enough
Vandalism is a problem / erorrs / omiisiosn
Everyone must engage ojn the wiki
Their is an easy anwe to why dont people edit
Equal acces = equal empowerment
informal structure, culoture etc etc
All wikis must be open; technologie doesn always constrains policy
_NEXT PAGE__
Wikipedia is still marginalized
A wiki is a encyclopedia
not neceessary complete nor uptodate to be succesfull
not always about articles, sources , authors and revisions and debate
Wikis are always uptodata
Documented on a wiki == transparancy
Everything belongs on the wiki - also 500GB video
Myths are bad
Wikis are the now that they can be
Techonology = policy = there is one (ultimate ) wikiway to use it
Some one will do it - put it on the wiki
_NEXT PAGE__
The good...myths
opportunities to find people who can help you with your project;Wiki is a social network;
Make a case that other things can hapen then prior though of
spurs development of plugins and tools to help the wiki be better for varied tasks ~~ (s) and innovation
Does structure help? it depends
Can a mess work? Sometimes. intecollage debate wiki
People can contribute though ways other than editing. (at first or forever) a mail, coffeemachine
Offers a low floor, high ceiling for user engagement
Vandalism terrors can be productive. ~vandalism is a threat ~ SPam however is aniusance for the open internet
ANyonbe can edit
You can make a wiki for your own purpose. It embodies whatever stance you have
Are always uptodate
Can be (is?) very transparent
A good search helps
--> I hope this is of use, please add and edit, as I couldn't read everything so clear. Regards, Lex Slaghuis
Everyone at this conference knows something about wikis, and is probably heavily involved with one or another.
And probably all of us at some point has been asked "can you help me build my wiki?" Often from someone who has some sort of mistaken idea about how the technology works, how the culture works, or both. Wikipedia is responsible for many of these misconceptions--people assume that Wikipedia is the archetypical wiki, rather than an aberration. Some of these misconceptions come from the press's misconceptions of Wikipedia. Others from general studies of "Web 2.0", "crowdsourcing", "the cloud", and internet culture. In this session we tried to collect all the myths we could think of (and why they're myths). We also identified some opportunities lurking in these misconceptions.
Myths:
"If you build it, they will come."
(For those who don't get the reference, it comes from the movie Field of Dreams, and this is really the only part of the movie people remember. For good reason.)
Wikipedia is a terrible influence
IWBITC is not self apparent
When social effects are complicated people wait and see
Much harder if competing with other systems
people dont know how governance works
more structure is better. Sometimes best to be organic
Wikis are really goed for social networks
Community building is easy
you need a community to dirve a wiki
wiki can do everything well
Wikipedia is anarchy
_NEXT PAGE__
Wikipedia is a monolith
Someone is in charge / shoudl be in charge
contributors are motivated by the whole - induvidual motives play no role
Wikis automatically remove hierarchy
One size fits all - mediawiki ideal for everything, some times cant even be csutomzied
Everyone has to buy into the whole thing - perhaps just buy in just enough
Vandalism is a problem / erorrs / omiisiosn
Everyone must engage ojn the wiki
Their is an easy anwe to why dont people edit
Equal acces = equal empowerment
informal structure, culoture etc etc
All wikis must be open; technologie doesn always constrains policy
_NEXT PAGE__
Wikipedia is still marginalized
A wiki is a encyclopedia
not neceessary complete nor uptodate to be succesfull
not always about articles, sources , authors and revisions and debate
Wikis are always uptodata
Documented on a wiki == transparancy
Everything belongs on the wiki - also 500GB video
Myths are bad
Wikis are the now that they can be
Techonology = policy = there is one (ultimate ) wikiway to use it
Some one will do it - put it on the wiki
_NEXT PAGE__
The good...myths
opportunities to find people who can help you with your project;Wiki is a social network;
Make a case that other things can hapen then prior though of
spurs development of plugins and tools to help the wiki be better for varied tasks ~~ (s) and innovation
Does structure help? it depends
Can a mess work? Sometimes. intecollage debate wiki
People can contribute though ways other than editing. (at first or forever) a mail, coffeemachine
Offers a low floor, high ceiling for user engagement
Vandalism terrors can be productive. ~vandalism is a threat ~ SPam however is aniusance for the open internet
ANyonbe can edit
You can make a wiki for your own purpose. It embodies whatever stance you have
Are always uptodate
Can be (is?) very transparent
A good search helps
--> I hope this is of use, please add and edit, as I couldn't read everything so clear. Regards, Lex Slaghuis