Mare Nostrum

Are Wikis wacky?

It's hard to find an organization that doesn't have a Wiki project going. It may still be in the "I've got a feeling inside/But can't explain" stage, or people may have piloted a departmental Wiki, which other groups are scrutinizing for their own possible use. What's clear is, out of all the Web 2.0 collaboration technologies (Wikis, blogs, mash-ups, etc.), Wikis seem to have the biggest traction right now.

But why? Wikis can be the John Q. Public version of web content management, suitable for situations where you want a simple, easy way for people to create web pages about important bits of shared content. For example, I have a Wiki page for product management here at Xythos, because I need to explain and link to content from a variety of sources. Sure, I could create an enterprise portal infrastructure, aggregating content via web services into a decision-maker's dashboard, customized for each viewer--but why would I do that, if all I want to do is show everything the PM department is doing?

Before getting swept into the psychology of the crowd, it's important to pose some harder questions. Alan Pelz-Sharpe of CMS Watch has some deliciously contrarian things to say about Wikis. I suggest you read the comments, too, for some thoughtful reactions.

I'll say this about Wikis, after a couple of years' experience using them:

• As with all web content, their value depends on the freshness and relevance of the content they contain.
• Therefore, Wikis can be a great tool, or just another regular task on your daily to-do list.
• As with other Web 2.0 collaboration tools, Wikis are more valuable when hooked into other collaborative technology. For example, a Wiki without a forum doesn't seem to make sense to me.
• The more content creation can be automated, such as through RSS feeds, the sweeter life will be as a Wiki author.