University of Canberra/RCC2011/Let's reverse-brainstorm: Why wikis don't work
- people have different goals & in a wiki people have to collaborate & they do it better on their own
- too hard to use (info architecture, structuring)
- we don’t have the skills
- ugly
- Unreliable technology
- People won’t agree
- it is public, the permanency frightens people & functions
- WE have enough info out there (google)
- too much time, too busy, sb else can do it
- wikis are messy
- what’s the point if it gets changed anyway
- lack of facilitation
- people want control over content, they want power
- you challenge people’s world view in a wiki
- Stepping backwards (ie. categories, they are really sophisticated taxonomies out there)
- Tech is poor
- lack of good tagging
- readability
- vandalism
- wordpress is much easier
What is a wiki?
[edit | edit source]Core features to a wiki: participation – you meet sb via an edit, complete history about the changes => accountability, creates a sense of ownership
- primacy of authorship (people want their own spaces)
- Solo-isolation of content
- People don’t get it, wikis are full of pdfs
- You can’t see how it works compared to blogs, twitter. You instantly see how it works
- lack of trust (in content) & legitimacy in large orgs
- fear
Why do wikis work?
[edit | edit source]- creative process
- Once sb gets over fear, people start participating
- Trainspotting phenomenon
- Wikis harness accuracy
- low entry barrier, 2 secs to edit
- I can create a structure that I want
Sidetrack Wikipedia: Why Wikipedia is going to fail?
[edit | edit source]The correct question is if it is going to fail before it is fixed?
- Achievements: WP build a comprehensive database about academic journals
- Since wp, I am frustrated that I can’t edit Sydney Morning Herald online
- Success of WP was good PR