What is Digg?Sponsored by HowLifeWorks
How Much Are You Over-Paying For Your Auto Insurance view!
howlifeworks.com - Car insurance rates have dropped leaving many people paying far more than they need to...
30 Comments
- Beaver6813, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7I prefer to think of Wiki's as a way for people to collaboratively share their information, the information isn't always reliable, but you rely on the community to correct any mistakes.
- tomoleary, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Well, the social nature of wikis does differentiate it from a Microsoft word document which would be difficult for a community to edit in a timely fashion (i.e. being on the same page at the same time). In wikis, the social nature of the editing process provides an immediate and ongoing checks-and-balances system that traditional word processing systems don't.
That said, the social nature of wikis does present some problems in that any user-generated or user-controlled medium requires trust in the input from those same users and can result in misinformation if not properly monitored by someone in authority to ensure the accuracy of the information included.
All the best
Tom - Gally, on 10/12/2007, -4/+6Good synopsis by author.. wikis have there problems but they certainly are a powerful and fast way of accumulating relatively accurate information on any subject.. long may they continue..
- tomoleary, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3Just read an interesting piece that discusses the value of wikis and other social media (i.e. Twitter) in terms of the people who collaborate rather than the technology itself. A wiki that attracts duds will be a dud. A twitter network that contains boring people will be boring. You get the point.
Anyway, here it is: http://knowledgeforward.wordpress.com/2007/04/12/the-people-make-the-party/
All the best
Tom - tomoleary, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I mentioned wikia.com on my blog post (http://www.messagingtimes.com/blog/?p=517), which I included as a supplemental reference for this discussion. Often, like in Academy Award speeches, important players are left out during the mentions. The beauty of the Internet, and wikis for that matter, is that comments/edits serve as a continuance of the initial topic of discussion and value is added when more people collaborate after an initial piece is written.
- tomoleary, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2There appear to be a few people out there alright who dig down without any real justifiable reason. This serves an example of the struggle that wikis face when independent and often subjective voices determine value and/or accuracy. Doesn't bother me though. Digg me down baby. Don't hate the player, hate the game.
- listrophy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1The problem with wikis is Microsoft Word. Period.
People have become so entrenched in the practice of emailing Word attachments and painstakingly merging comments from multiple sources that wikis are all but doomed.
I'm doing my part to promote an intranet wiki where I work, but acceptance is incredibly low, despite its obvious benefits (history, tracking authors, concurrent editing and merging, etc). Thank you Microsoft Word. Thank you so very very much. - tomoleary, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2I like the sound of wiki on a stick!
- pcgeek101, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Dugg down for speaking the truth? Wow .... lame
- Icefreez, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Booo no Wowwiki.com listed
- brettruffenach, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0"Wikipedia, is a Internet site where anyone around the world can put whatever they want on the site... thus making it the most reliable site ever. "
what's next? WikiNation? - Electric_Sheep, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2I use a personal desktop wiki called Wiki on a Stick. It's more of a basic wiki without all the advanced features of a wikipedia model, but it's decent enough to keep on a USB stick and making notes when i'm at university.
http://stickwiki.sourceforge.net/ - tomoleary, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2Just read an interesting piece that discusses the value of wikis and other social media (i.e. Twitter) in terms of the people who collaborate rather than the technology itself. A wiki that attracts duds will be a dud. A twitter network that contains boring people will be boring. You get the point.
Anyway, here it is: http://knowledgeforward.wordpress.com/2007/04/12/the-people-make-the-party/
All the best
Tom - Msoltanian, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1+1 just because of the idea of the whole Wiki, also +1 because I learned about af ew cool sites. Thanks mate
- feelmydisease, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0great starting point for those of us late to wikimania
- tawker, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Still, they forgot the biggest player in the scene Wikia (http://www.wikia.com) - which was pretty sad.
- Farrel, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0You highlight a point that is far broader than your comment. Technology and applications are evolving far faster than groups can accommodate to. I accommodate to them fast because I find them exciting. However to those who derive zero excitement and will only be swayed by utility, tend to resist unless the groundswell gets them.
I too am try to get people to use a Wiki - very little participation has resulted. Most people are only comfortable with something or anything that they have played with. Since most humans stop playing once they leave childhood it means that we are constantly stuck. - markmayhew, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1pbwiki.com rocks (pb is for "peanut butter")!
- Soulhuntre, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1"The problem with wikis is Microsoft Word"
Hardly. Hell, with the addition of Sharepoint Word becomes a fine format for collaborative document creation. The documents in question are linear because they are simply documents - not online databases.
One of the problems with Wikis si that so far the majority of them frankly suck. Even Mediawiki has serious flaws. The formatiing is obtuse and inconsistent, templating is basically painful and it completely lacks any ability to fit in with the rest fo a corporate intranet.
Once wiki features get grafted onto an good, simple existing CMS system things will really take off. - Farrel, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Google and JotSpot
Wouldn't Google Docs & Spreadsheets and Google Groups both be a kind of a Wiki. I guess JotSpot will allow them to integrate it better and add additional features. What would a dedicated Wiki hoster such as PBwiki or the other provide over and above that which I have mentioned? - tomoleary, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1"A recent study found Wikipedia to be more accurate than real dictionaries."
I think that would depend on the specific wiki, wouldn't it? There are some wikis out there which contain purposeful errors posted by wiki flamers to damage the accuracy of the entry. If a particular wiki isn't actively monitored by a community, these intentional errors might remain in the entry for long periods and assumed accurate by readers. Even when not intentional, user subjectivity or unintentional misinformation on topics often creeps into the mixing bowl. - mattbrighton, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1Wiki's have traditionally about keeping things lean. But i'd like to see more 'superwiki' packages - wiki at the core, but with more collaboration spaces built in. Wetpaints messaging features is a good start to this. Expression Engine also has a wiki module as part of its member system which has messaging. -- But none have taskgroup/collaboration spaces yet (unless you count the enterprise solutions)
- johnlholden, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0great introduction and summary of the subject.
- uzusan, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1I just found out about tiddlywiki today, brilliant little program that it is.
its a personal wiki that can be used on or offline (ive got one on my usb stick at the moment).
http://www.tiddlywiki.com/ - tomoleary, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1Silicon Valley’s focus is on the social web. Social diaries (blogs), social networks and social wiki models are the sexy commodities in the area these days. In line with web 2.0 strategy, advertising-based wiki sites are all the rage in the Valley. Read more at http://www.messagingtimes.com/blog/?p=517
Plus, who can avoid saying, wiki wiki wiki in a hip-hop fashion. Not I said the Cat, Not I said the Rat...
Wikis are cool because collaboration is cool.
Nice piece David. - izelpii, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0We (LIT at UNT) are developing Wiki for translation, if somebody is interested.
The project is here, it will be distributed GPL of course.
lit.csci.unt.edu/~babylon/wikiTR
Examples here:
http://lit.csci.unt.edu/~babylon/wikiTR/index.php/Article_1
http://lit.csci.unt.edu/~babylon/wikiTR/index.php/Article_2 - roxby, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1Zoho wiki is also a good one
- roxby, on 10/12/2007, -4/+2Sure, wikis are a great way to collaborate.
- pcgeek101, on 10/12/2007, -5/+2Their accuracy is soley based on the input from the contributers to the wiki. Therefore, your statement that "they certainly are a powerful and fast way of accumulating relatively accurate information" has very little value. How much more accurate is a wiki than a Microsoft Word document I type up, print out, and subsequently hand to you? Would it be more credible if I set up Mediawiki, and posted information on there? Nope.
That said, Wikis do have their uses, and I am a huge advocate of using them for documentation purposes, for example, for an internal IT department at a company. Their ease of access by simply using a web browser makes them quite user friendly, and cross-platform as well. This article does do a great job of summing up Wikis though. Digg++ - Mootabolife, on 10/12/2007, -6/+1A recent study found Wikipedia to be more accurate than real dictionaries.
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is