My first thought on wikis is that there has to be some "tipping point" of participation that will guarantee fact checking and accuracy. If too few people participate, the wiki is subject to opinion and paranoia. If enough people commit to the wiki, it can work. But they are mostly volunteers. What about the long haul?
So, I watched the Common Craft video and can see how wikis are more than a reference source. Their utility as a communication and collaboration tool is really exciting. Just today I found myself on a merry-go-round of email messages about something at work. A wiki would have made the process flow much more efficiently.
I was a little disappointed by the Library Best Practicies wiki. I am currently taking the Certified Public Manager Levels IV, V, and VI course, so I gravitated toward the management subject areas and did not find much content. It felt like false advertising. The wiki seemed to be saying "Look here for some great information" but when I clicked on the topics, it was more of a "If we build it, they will come" scenario. What if nobody shows up? There is no guarantee that anyone is looking out for comprehensiveness.
A cool wiki I have seen:
Flu wiki - This one started up back when the possibility of a global flu pandemic became big news. I see it has not been updated in 3 months. That's slightly alarming.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Thanks for the comment! actually, the updates happen more frequently, especially here...
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/3/3/82313/84788/59/467771
Very good points made about the wiki's. They really are only as good as the partipants. I started one for our reference department about questions that are asked frequently. I hope to keep it up.
Post a Comment