Wikis have been sort of a mystery to me. I understand why the exist, that they allow users all the power for editing, contributing, etc. and that Wikipedia has caused a lot of controversy since its' beginning. I've used wikipedia when I couldn't find the answer in a more traditional resource, but if any other fact-checked resource is available, I use that first. I asked a professor friend of mine about wikipedia once, and she said she allows her undergraduates to use it, but not her graduate students. What? Huh? Why have different standards for students? Are undergraduates expected to be less intelligent automatically? Or is it that they aren't resourceful enough? Or possibly that they don't really care enough about the subject to be taken seriously? Hmm...
Tom Cross' article "Puppy Smoothies: Improving the Reliability of Open, Collaborative Wikis" is totally fabulous. Not only does it have a catchy title, but it presents a great idea that I hope is implemented- using color to designate how many edits a wiki has been given. The use of color is an ingenius way to guide people without them even knowing it. Color therapy uses these concepts as well; blue indicates sadness, green growth and life, purple energy, etc. Cross proposes using colors from traffic signals, green, yellow and red, because most people are familiar with these. He also lists the weaknesses as well, such as wikipedia already uses a shade of red for something else.
An idea I haven't thought of before but am glad to be enlightened of now is the concept of survival of the wiki. If a wiki has been around long enough to survive 50+ edits without the content changing significantly, it deserves to stay around. Even though the users may not have formal education in said background, if it's being viewed by that many people, the errors are bound to be corrected. The majority of people looking for information don't want to maliciously upload erroneous information. I like that, trusting people and having public good in mind...but is this real? I suppose only time will tell...
Tom Cross' article "Puppy Smoothies: Improving the Reliability of Open, Collaborative Wikis" is totally fabulous. Not only does it have a catchy title, but it presents a great idea that I hope is implemented- using color to designate how many edits a wiki has been given. The use of color is an ingenius way to guide people without them even knowing it. Color therapy uses these concepts as well; blue indicates sadness, green growth and life, purple energy, etc. Cross proposes using colors from traffic signals, green, yellow and red, because most people are familiar with these. He also lists the weaknesses as well, such as wikipedia already uses a shade of red for something else.
An idea I haven't thought of before but am glad to be enlightened of now is the concept of survival of the wiki. If a wiki has been around long enough to survive 50+ edits without the content changing significantly, it deserves to stay around. Even though the users may not have formal education in said background, if it's being viewed by that many people, the errors are bound to be corrected. The majority of people looking for information don't want to maliciously upload erroneous information. I like that, trusting people and having public good in mind...but is this real? I suppose only time will tell...
Comments