** This thread discusses the article: What's with Wikis? **
This is a discussion about What's with Wikis?.
This is a discussion about What's with Wikis?.
Yes, and it's not really correct to say the writing is by committee. There is no committee, and there are no meetings.Absolutely right. I should have been less ambiguous. I was commenting on the Wikipedia definition of wikis as facilitating "collaborative writing". I was trying to say that IF collaborative writing meant creative writing by committee I would not be comfortable with that. I was not trying to say that's what Wikipedia does. (Although, for all I know, other wikis that I don't know about may do that. A committee doesn't have to meet in person. It can still be a committee if it meets online asynchronously through the vehicle of a wiki.) I then went on to say that I do approve of collaborative writing for the purpose of consolidating factual information from a number of sources, which is basically what Wikipedia does. Ralph also said,
The basic idea wiki's are built upon is that more people are willing to be truthful, accurate and responsible than not.Maybe I'm just a cynic, but I'd like to forward all of the spam I get to whoever came up with that idea. They might change their mind about the basic truthfulness, accurateness and responsibleness of most people. Ralph also said,
My big problem is with the name. Doesn't the name "wiki" sound a little silly?I absolutely agree. I was sure there had to be a really good joke about the name "wiki" (preferably one that MC Press would let me print), but I just couldn't think of one. If anyone else can think of one, please post it here.
Comment