I've been running a public wiki for almost three weeks now. What, might you ask, is a wiki? Not having done a comprehensive search for a definition, I nevertheless recommend the following from wiki.org, which I will quote here:
Wiki is in Ward's [Ward Cunningham] original description:
The simplest online database that could possibly work.Wiki is a piece of server software that allows users to freely create and edit Web page content using any Web browser. Wiki supports hyperlinks and has a simple text syntax for creating new pages and crosslinks between internal pages on the fly.
Wiki is unusual among group communication mechanisms in that it allows the organization of contributions to be edited in addition to the content itself.
Like many simple concepts, "open editing" has some profound and subtle effects on Wiki usage. Allowing everyday users to create and edit any page in a Web site is exciting in that it encourages democratic use of the Web and promotes content composition by nontechnical users.
You might then wonder what the big deal about a wiki is. I would answer that you have to try it to really believe it. Before I set up my own wiki, I tried editing the page on Johann Sebastian Bach on probably the world's grandest wiki: the Wikipedia. ("a multilingual project to create a complete and accurate open content encyclopedia") When I first encountered the page, it looked a bit like a version from Oct 2001, a very sparse beginning; I thought that the Wikipedia was, in principle, a good idea but it would would not be able to attract enough writing or editorial talent for the project to amount to much. I actually put more hope in Nupedia project, which was based on formal peer review, though I was sure that it would a very long time before either the Wikipedia or the Nupedia could rival commercial encyclopaedic efforts like the Britannica.
Now, about two years later, when I look at the current state of the J. S. Bach article, I have become more of a believer in the possibilities of the Wikipedia -- and wikis in general. The article is shaping up nicely, to the point that I have made a small edit in an attempt to improve the piece and consider making larger-scale additions, so that I could then proudly point to it as the best single introductory article on the subject. (I am intrigued by how being able to rewrite an article (as part of a collective effort) makes me more invested in the final product.)
But as I wrote above, you have to try a wiki to grok it. Read, for example, to the introductory page on the Wikipedia if you have a hankering for, editing the article on Shania Twain (Timmins-girl-made-it-big) -- I just did to make the proper link between Twain and Timmins. Try editing a page, either the Wikipedia:Sandbox or the sandbox on my wiki.
It was (and still is) a bit disconcerting to be hosting a wiki in which anyone can come edit the pages. I've worried about wiki security or the lack thereof. But the FAQ gets it right (IMHO): "In other words, the philosophy of wiki is one of dealing manually with the rare (exception) case of a saboteur, rather than designing in features and overhead (both in implementation and in usage) to avoid the damage caused by a saboteur." Not having to deal with passwords and letting anyone edit my wiki -- while monitoring my wiki for changes has worked so far. In fact, even if one invites a friend to contribute to my wiki, he or she won't necessarily know how without explicit guidance.
Besides being editable by anyone (by default), a wiki is made to enable new documents to be added easily. To create a link to a page in a wiki, one can, for example, write a WikiName, "a word that uses capitalized words" that automagically becomes a link. If the page doesn't yet exist, a person clicking on the link is invited to create that page. Note the subtle shift from tradition web authoring, where one has to create a link and also create the corresponding page -- else, we get a 404 error. In some sense, wikis don't have broken internal links; rather there are new opportunities to add to the wiki. Because it is so little work to create a new page (or to mark out a page to be filled out later on by one's self or another person), I have found my wiki to be a great place to do my braindumps, to accumulate my ideas and thoughts and for the connections to start snapping into place. After experiencing the thrill of a public wiki, I decided to install a local wiki accessible only to myself where I can work my own stuff in private. The question of whether to place content in my private vs public wiki or how I should migrate materials from my private to public space are ones I ponder these days. (And I certainly wonder about how to get group wikis running for projects to which I want to invite a limited number of people.)
There clearly is a lot more to learn concerning wikis. Anyone know how good is the book The Wiki Way: Collaboration and Sharing on the Internet? I would like to explore Ward Cunningham's famous wiki to get an understanding of how a body of work adds up in one person's wiki. A while back, McGee's Musings' useful summary of wikis helped me get oriented to the topic as well as David Mattison's gigantic piece on the topic. (Mattison's article points to discussions on the relationship between blogging and wikis that I would I like to dig more into -- I still love the chronological nature of blogging -- and the expectation that one largely freezes a piece of writing (after some time). In a wiki, the words are never finished (in general) but keep changing.
Wikis can be radically collaborative. Rick Beaubien and I have been drafting our paper on METS/IMS-CP interoperability in my wiki. I look forward to others collaborating on my wiki on related interests.
Posted by rdhyee at August 12, 2003 05:59 PM