No Wiki-Wiki

I don’t like wikis.  They ask so much, and give so little. “Contribute!  Collaborate!  Make the world a better place!” they shout!   And many wikis don’t ease you into the process, for instance by suggesting that you “start here” or by providing a table of contents.  I know I’m being a bit harsh, but I’ve seen too many poorly constructed, ultimately abandoned wikis to feel that they are a useful tool for long-term use on anything less than a highly-specific theme for a small, invested user group.

It seems that libraries are moving away from the wiki model for several reasons:

1.  it’s difficult to develop a clear overarching structure that many participants can understand and work within.  If you look at the example of the Alaska Association of School Librarians, you’ll see that even a neat looking page can semi-hide the fact that the point of the wiki is very vague.   The introduction simply refers to the sidebar, and the postings in the FrontPage column offer little clarification to the wiki’s purpose.  Also, you may notice that the site was last updated over a year ago...why was it abandoned do you think?  Did lack of wiki structure cause the collaboration to collapse?

2.  People prefer commenting to collaboration.  Tagging, rating, commenting--or merely reading--are less labor-intense for users, so libraries move to blogs, podcasts, social bookmarking to better serve their stakeholders.  As Cashel mentions (2007), wiki contributors are more likely to edit than to create.  

3. It’s more difficult to maintain a wiki which may depend on several collaborators for content than a blog which typically one person writes & mediates.  The structure and readability of the info on a blog or podcast is more current, immediate, accessible.  It’s a simpler information delivery method for writer and reader both.

If I were to choose between a wiki or social bookmarking for a library study guide, I’d likely go with the social bookmark system. Wikis tend to look more confusing than they are, and the “collaboration” model often leads me to wonder, “Who’s in charge of this?”  Wikis should always designate a person or department who holds responsibility for the content, even in the midst of collaboration.  I think many wikis have failed because of this lack of perceived leadership.  Social bookmarking, on the other hand, both personalizes the information sharing experience and gives each user a sense of ownership & responsibility through having an individualized account; choosing social bookmarkers to follow; adding to the organization & structure of the site through tagging, rating, commenting, and saving; and seeing how this makes a difference.

That said, just today I discovered the nicest, most helpful and organized wiki I’ve seen:  the APLEN Training Wiki.  I googled a topic for work, found the wiki in a pile of results, and found it to be a very helpful source for various work projects.  What I like about this wiki is the clear sidebar which notes the topics on the site.  Also, I have been to the APLEN office in Edmonton Public Library, met the staff, and recognize other names on the site.  This gives me a sense of who is ultimately responsible for the content, and to whom I might go with questions or concerns--instead of posting such on the wiki for all to see. (Again, Cashel suggests this is a characteristic of successful wiki--collaborators know each other. And as Nichani concludes, it’s best if the intended collaborators have previous experience in working together in online environments.)   I have socially bookmarked this wiki for future reference!

---

Cashel, J. (2007). “When to Use a Wiki.” Online Community Report.

Nichani, M. (2007). "Planning and Sustaining Wiki-Based Collaboration Projects." Pebble Road.