University of Canberra/RCC2011/Let's reverse-brainstorm: Why wikis don't work

From Wikiversity
Jump to navigation Jump to search
  1. people have different goals & in a wiki people have to collaborate & they do it better on their own
  2. too hard to use (info architecture, structuring)
  3. we don’t have the skills
  4. ugly
  5. Unreliable technology
  6. People won’t agree
  7. it is public, the permanency frightens people & functions
  8. WE have enough info out there (google)
  9. too much time, too busy, sb else can do it
  10. wikis are messy
  11. what’s the point if it gets changed anyway
  12. lack of facilitation
  13. people want control over content, they want power
  14. you challenge people’s world view in a wiki
  15. Stepping backwards (ie. categories, they are really sophisticated taxonomies out there)
  16. Tech is poor
  17. lack of good tagging
  18. readability
  19. vandalism
  20. wordpress is much easier

What is a wiki?[edit]

Core features to a wiki: participation – you meet sb via an edit, complete history about the changes => accountability, creates a sense of ownership

  1. primacy of authorship (people want their own spaces)
  2. Solo-isolation of content
  3. People don’t get it, wikis are full of pdfs
  4. You can’t see how it works compared to blogs, twitter. You instantly see how it works
  5. lack of trust (in content) & legitimacy in large orgs
  6. fear

Why do wikis work?[edit]

  1. creative process
  2. Once sb gets over fear, people start participating
  3. Trainspotting phenomenon
  4. Wikis harness accuracy
  5. low entry barrier, 2 secs to edit
  6. I can create a structure that I want

Sidetrack Wikipedia: Why Wikipedia is going to fail?[edit]

The correct question is if it is going to fail before it is fixed?

  1. Achievements: WP build a comprehensive database about academic journals
  2. Since wp, I am frustrated that I can’t edit Sydney Morning Herald online
  3. Success of WP was good PR