History: Myths on wikis
Preview of version: 5
"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 isn, 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
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.)
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 isn, 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
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