Regardless of how you feel about the quality or accuracy of the content that’s being developed on Wikipedia, as a collaborative initiative using a social medium it has been very successful. Even despite some of its more recent setbacks, you can’t argue that it’s brought together a multitude of individuals with very diverse backgrounds and expertise and allowed for the creation of a product that has become, for many, a first stop on their journey to learn something new. (If that’s their only stop then they’re not doing in-depth research, but then the same could be said for any other information resource.)
As I listen in on Wiki conversations and hear people present their arguments of why Wikis are a great way to get people to share, collaborate, and create good content, the first statements usually sound something like, “Well…its great because on a Wiki when somebody puts up inaccurate information or tries to vandalize the site, anyone else can easily go in and correct the error. “And that’s where the conversation usually stops because that’s usually enough to get a Wiki installed.
So what happens next? The Wiki gets installed overnight, they open it up to everyone, and after a little while they wonder why people aren’t using it or why the people who are using it are still creating really crappy content.
So I ask myself, what’s missing in these Wikis? What does Wikipedia have that other Wikis don’t?
I’ve been thinking about it for some time and I have a few ideas.
#1 Shared Vision: As much as Wikipedia is a Wiki, its also an encyclopedia. Everyone knows what an encyclopedia is and when everyone understands the vision and knows what they’re striving to create, you get a lot more effective collaboration.
#2 Strong Foundation: Did you know that Wikipedia is built on a foundation called the Five Pillars? The first pillar, in case you missed it in the name, explicitly states “Wikipedia is an encyclopedia”. The other four pillars also set the vision and remind the user community that content must have a neutral point of view, that content is free of copyright and must not infringe on copyright, that users must abide by the code of conduct, and that everything else is pretty much fair game as long as you understand the first four pillars.
#3 Emphasis on Wiki adoption: You feel like you might want to contribute, but you’re not sure how to start. Don’t worry, there are plenty of ways to get you on board. Simply check out a list of What you can do, follow an easy Tutorial, learn Wiki syntax by printing out a Cheatsheet, check out the FAQ, contact the Help Desk, learn how to find information, get paired up with a mentor, and plenty of more ways to make your entry into the Wiki world fast and easy.
#4 Compelling reasons to contribute: I can’t make you contribute, but chances are there’s a topic in Wikipedia that’s near and dear to your heart. Let’s pretend that you’re really passionate about money and how it gets issued. You have knowledge on the subject, you’ve got the facts, and the literature in your back pocket to support them. But wait! Let’s also pretend that the article on Money Creation has been written by a ten year old. It doesn’t present the whole story. There’s important information that’s missing. It’s not in the right order. It’s out-dated…. Go ahead! I dare you to leave it alone given the opportunity you have to make it better.
#5 Objective criteria: Have you ever tried to get a bunch of people together in a room to create something, ensure they have little or no disagreement, and avoid groupthink? It usually turns into a long ordeal of “My idea is better than your idea, I’m right and you’re wrong, my way is better than your way. Blah, blah, blah.” And in the end, you get a really crappy product. So, how does Wikipedia avoid this obstacle? By demanding that everyone’s contributions are measured against facts and evaluated for their accuracy based on pre-existing recorded information. There’s no room for personal opinions, experiences or arguments. No subjective B.S.
#6 Policies with consequences: Did you know that Wikipedia is not a free-for-all hippie paradise? There are rules and, if you break those rules, there are consequences. Who enforces these rules? Well, in some ways, its the ultimate Orwellian nightmare (tongue in cheek); everyone watches everyone else and in a worst case scenario your infractions are reported to the administrators who can take action to boot you out. It happens very rarely and peace does prevail.
- Which of these elements does your Wiki have and how are they applied? Which are missing and why?
- Are there other elements that you feel contribute to Wikipedia’s success as a Wiki?
#1 by Dale Arseneault - March 13th, 2009 at 17:21
Excellent synopsis. ‘Nuff said.
#2 by Bev. Graham - March 23rd, 2009 at 04:39
I wonder how you define “multitude”. Wikipedia has brought together a multitude of users, but the core of contributors is surprisingly small for the size of the impact. So two important features, which you listed but I am emphasising, are a core of dedicated contributors and strong administration. “If you build it they will come” is too simplistic a model.
#3 by Peter Zakrzewski - March 24th, 2009 at 06:39
Excellent observation Bev.
I took a quick look at the stats and according to WIkipedia for the 684 million vistors in 2008 there were 75,000 active contributors.
It’s really quite amazing what a powerful effect a relatively small group of people can have on a much larger whole.
Your comment also reminds of the “Participation Inequality” article by Jacob Nielsen where he talks about the 90-9-1 rule. (http://tiny.cc/7×6CW)
Imagine at the organizational scale, if we could get 90% of the population benefiting the content created by the 10% who make up the active contributors, then that’s definitely something to aim for.
If I had to take a quantam leap, given the way organizations operate right now, we probably have something to effect of 10% active contributors, 30% audience or lurkers, and 70% who don’t have proper access to the body of knowledge and information created within the organization. But that’s really speculation on my part and not objective fact.
#4 by Bev. Graham - March 30th, 2009 at 09:58
I think what every I saw – and of course I don’t have the citation – was saying that while there may be 75,000 active contributors, there is a much smaller core of people who are deeply involved. And they are the ones who are keeping things moving….
#5 by Luc - May 5th, 2009 at 18:43
Question: How can Wikipedia demand that “everyone’s contributions are measured against facts and evaluated for their accuracy based on pre-existing recorded information” and at the same time stay true to the pillar which stipulates that content “must not infringe on copyright”?
I’m not trying to be argumentative, only pointing out a bit of a contradiction and perhaps, just perhaps, an alternate answer to “#5 Objective Criteria”.
You actually touched on the answer in your well crafted question. The reason, I believe, that Wikipedia is so successful is because no one is being paid to provide input and therefore no one has the time nor the money to organise, plan, host said meetings that would be destined to fail (stall out all progress) or result in Groupthink.
A challenge that Wikipedia does not have but that most internal wikis of corporate stature (including government) do is the fear of flying. On Wikipedia, you have but a few ways to submit content. Either you are bold and change the Content page, or you sheepishly propose the change on the Talk page. Either way, you’ve had your say and the world is now your audience. The corporate bully is powerless in this arena.
Switch to the corporate wiki and suddenly those same changes have to be discussed in closed-door meetings; the content carefully crafted so as to reflect the mental image of the most senior official… etc etc.
#6 by Peter Zakrzewski - May 22nd, 2009 at 17:27
Hey Luc! Thanks for posting!
Creating content whether on Wikipedia, in a report, newspaper, or journal article and not infringing on copyright is not that difficult. As long as you cite your source, paraphrase, and/or quote properly, then you’re re-purposing and building on existing knowledge while still remaining within the guidelines of fair use. At least that I would be my understanding.
Your second comment about the fact that Wikipedia is successful because people aren’t paid to contribute implies that the power of the Wiki relies heavily on the altruism of its participants. If I understand your comment correctly, you believe that people only contribute because they believe in the Wiki as symbolizing the greater good. If that’s true, having only those people who are highly altruistic make contributions would mean that Wikipedia and the Wiki concept is actually not very successful at all. It only caters to a specific personality type and ignores those who engage because they as individuals actually gain benefit from their engagements.
I like to see Wikis implemented in such a way where its a win-win situation. I contribute because I want to build a larger body of knowledge and I get recognized for my contribution and learn something in the process of contributing.
Your final comments regarding internal wikis suggest that people are afraid to be bold and in suggesting edits instead of actually making them makes the person “sheepish”.
I believe that in order to be successful, internal Wikis have to exist within a culture of collaboration. Wikis, like Email, and Microsoft Office are merely tools that are supposed to harness a groups ability to record information, communicate effectively, and collaborate. If people are not able to not effective recorders of information, have good communication skills or able to work collaboratively, not amount of tool will help them.
Rather than seeing it as being “sheepish”, I think that proposing a change on a Talk page rather than making an edit is an invitation for open dialogue and conversation. Someone has an idea or concept, not yet fully flushed out and they need someone to converse with them. Remember it’s a “social medium”.
Most organizations exist in a culture where we’re not able to have effective dialogues with one another. Be it face to face or virtually. Our listening skills, our ability to ask questions, and our ability to dialogue are highly lacking. We also don’t place a very high value on these skills, nor the social dynamics, and processes that go into the development of content or an information object. We’re so eager to get to the product that when the journey becomes painful, we forget that we have to smooth the road every once in a while.
The fact that we have meetings behind closed doors unnecessarily for me means that we have not reached a stage where we have the maturity, skills, competencies, patience, and resources to be able to facilitate large group dialogues and to move large groups of people along a path in unison ensuring that we’re all on the same page every step of the way.
On the other hand, sometimes its more effective when a General gives the orders and the men and women march. Each approach has its time and place and we just have to be more open to and effective at choosing the right approach.