History: Myths on wikis
Source of version: 7 (current)
"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.)
One myth is that many people believe simply putting the wiki software up is enough, and collaboration will happen on its own. They don't know how much deliberate effort is needed to start and grow the sort of community that can sustain a good wiki.
Sometimes this is a belief that all you need is a wiki and content, but that the community will emerge on its own. However, there are several counterexamples. A notorious one is the LA Times's "Wikitorials", which were a spectacular failure. The had the software, they had the content, but they didn't have the community of maintainers.
__Wikipedia is a good example of a wiki.__
Many people's only real knowledges of wikis comes from Wikipedia, and they assume all wikis function like it. When actually, Wikipedia is a very unusual example, for many reasons.
__When social effects are complicated people wait and see__
I don't remember what the discussion around this was!
__Much harder if competing with other systems__
people dont know how governance works
__More structure is better.__
Sometimes it is, and sometimes it isn't. Sometimes it best to let structure develop organically. "Desire lines": let structure emerge where it's wanted and needed, along its natural tendencies, rather than trying to shoehorn it into a system adapted to another community and another purpose.
__Wikis are really good for social networks__
Wiki participants may form social connections, but it's not a specialized tool for the job; it's too freeform for most people's idea of a social networking tool. There are addons to give wikis more features that better enable social networking.
__Community-building is easy.__
Community-building is hard!
__You need a community to drive a wiki.__
Wiki is just a technology. It's good for creating community-built resources, but that's not the only use. A personal wiki or one built by a small, closed group is still a wiki.
__Wiki can do everything well__
__Wiki(pedia) is anarchy__
__Wikipedia is a monolith__
__Someone is in charge / someone should be in charge__
This depends on your community, not the technology.
__Contributors are motivated by community goals; individual motives play no role__
__Wikis automatically remove hierarchy__
__Wikis are one size fits all/MediaWiki is ideal for everything__
Not true. Sometimes MediaWiki can't even be customized to do what you'd like it to, at least not well.
__Everyone has to buy into the whole mission__
perhaps just buy in just enough
__Vandalism, errors, and omissions are always problems__
__To help the project, everyone must engage on the wiki itself__
__There is an easy answer to the question "why don't people edit?"__
__Equal access = equal empowerment__
informal structure, culture, etc etc
__All wikis must be open__
Technology doesn't always constrain policy
__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 up-to-date__
__"Documented on a wiki" == "transparent"
Sometimes it's a bit more like security through obscurity...
__Everything belongs on the wiki__
Some things are better suited to other places. Your 500GB video might be better off on its own site rather than embedded in a wiki page.
__Myths are bad__
__Wikis are now the best that they can be__
__The technology dictates the policy; there is one (ultimate) "wiki way" to use it__
__Someone will do it - put it on the wiki__
Opportunities arising from the myths:
Wiki building won't happen automatically, which gives you the opportunity to to find people who can help you with your project
Wiki is a social network, but not like a normal one. You do form ties, and social ties can be visible through watching user activity.
Other things can happen that were not previously thought of, because wiki is so freeform and the technology does not have to shape the policies and development of the community.
Wiki's inadequacy for certain tasks, on its own, spurs development of plugins and tools to help the wiki be better for varied tasks.
Does structure help? It depends.
Can a mess work? Sometimes. (Example: intercollege debate wiki.)
People can contribute though ways other than editing, and you can help figure out what those are. They may participate this way just at first, or forever.
Wikis offers a low floor and high ceiling for user engagement. There is no one right level of engagement.
Vandalism and errors can be productive. (Spam, however, is a nuisance for the open internet.)
Anyone can edit. This is an opportunity, even when it sometimes feels like a terrible idea.
You can make a wiki for your own purpose. It embodies whatever stance you have, and is not bound to one particular purpose.
Wikis are not automatically up-to-date, but they can be much easier to keep up to date.
Wikis can enable radical transparency.
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
*Thanks Lex! Still trying to remember what some of these somewhat cryptic notes referred to... they seemed so obvious at the time. -Kat
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.)
One myth is that many people believe simply putting the wiki software up is enough, and collaboration will happen on its own. They don't know how much deliberate effort is needed to start and grow the sort of community that can sustain a good wiki.
Sometimes this is a belief that all you need is a wiki and content, but that the community will emerge on its own. However, there are several counterexamples. A notorious one is the LA Times's "Wikitorials", which were a spectacular failure. The had the software, they had the content, but they didn't have the community of maintainers.
__Wikipedia is a good example of a wiki.__
Many people's only real knowledges of wikis comes from Wikipedia, and they assume all wikis function like it. When actually, Wikipedia is a very unusual example, for many reasons.
__When social effects are complicated people wait and see__
I don't remember what the discussion around this was!
__Much harder if competing with other systems__
people dont know how governance works
__More structure is better.__
Sometimes it is, and sometimes it isn't. Sometimes it best to let structure develop organically. "Desire lines": let structure emerge where it's wanted and needed, along its natural tendencies, rather than trying to shoehorn it into a system adapted to another community and another purpose.
__Wikis are really good for social networks__
Wiki participants may form social connections, but it's not a specialized tool for the job; it's too freeform for most people's idea of a social networking tool. There are addons to give wikis more features that better enable social networking.
__Community-building is easy.__
Community-building is hard!
__You need a community to drive a wiki.__
Wiki is just a technology. It's good for creating community-built resources, but that's not the only use. A personal wiki or one built by a small, closed group is still a wiki.
__Wiki can do everything well__
__Wiki(pedia) is anarchy__
__Wikipedia is a monolith__
__Someone is in charge / someone should be in charge__
This depends on your community, not the technology.
__Contributors are motivated by community goals; individual motives play no role__
__Wikis automatically remove hierarchy__
__Wikis are one size fits all/MediaWiki is ideal for everything__
Not true. Sometimes MediaWiki can't even be customized to do what you'd like it to, at least not well.
__Everyone has to buy into the whole mission__
perhaps just buy in just enough
__Vandalism, errors, and omissions are always problems__
__To help the project, everyone must engage on the wiki itself__
__There is an easy answer to the question "why don't people edit?"__
__Equal access = equal empowerment__
informal structure, culture, etc etc
__All wikis must be open__
Technology doesn't always constrain policy
__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 up-to-date__
__"Documented on a wiki" == "transparent"
Sometimes it's a bit more like security through obscurity...
__Everything belongs on the wiki__
Some things are better suited to other places. Your 500GB video might be better off on its own site rather than embedded in a wiki page.
__Myths are bad__
__Wikis are now the best that they can be__
__The technology dictates the policy; there is one (ultimate) "wiki way" to use it__
__Someone will do it - put it on the wiki__
Opportunities arising from the myths:
Wiki building won't happen automatically, which gives you the opportunity to to find people who can help you with your project
Wiki is a social network, but not like a normal one. You do form ties, and social ties can be visible through watching user activity.
Other things can happen that were not previously thought of, because wiki is so freeform and the technology does not have to shape the policies and development of the community.
Wiki's inadequacy for certain tasks, on its own, spurs development of plugins and tools to help the wiki be better for varied tasks.
Does structure help? It depends.
Can a mess work? Sometimes. (Example: intercollege debate wiki.)
People can contribute though ways other than editing, and you can help figure out what those are. They may participate this way just at first, or forever.
Wikis offers a low floor and high ceiling for user engagement. There is no one right level of engagement.
Vandalism and errors can be productive. (Spam, however, is a nuisance for the open internet.)
Anyone can edit. This is an opportunity, even when it sometimes feels like a terrible idea.
You can make a wiki for your own purpose. It embodies whatever stance you have, and is not bound to one particular purpose.
Wikis are not automatically up-to-date, but they can be much easier to keep up to date.
Wikis can enable radical transparency.
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
*Thanks Lex! Still trying to remember what some of these somewhat cryptic notes referred to... they seemed so obvious at the time. -Kat