So what if a wiki works? Who can use it?
Among the different systems I have come across for creating and managing content, one of the semi-friendly ones has been wikis. Since it makes sense to stay informed of what other people are doing with wikis, I was quite interested to read a recent posting about how at least one person saw wiki markup as having no future.
James Robertson (of Step Two Designs) has touched on a very practical and, well, true aspect of wikis. They generally don’t have a simple markup interface and usually make you learn a few oddly-organized and unusually-structured syntax in order to take advantage of the power of a wiki tool. I have had the experience of learning to use different wiki applications and made it a habit to regularly refer to the user documentation in order to appreciate what the tools could do. This exciting process required an investment of time and patience. If we are talking about encouraging companies or non-profit organizations to use wikis, then there has to be a better way to bring the users up to speed on how to put information into the wikis.
Wikis as tools – people can be taught
As a counterpoint to Mr. Robertson’s comments, I have found that there are increasingly varied plugins and enhancements to wiki tools that make them easier to use once they are set up. One example is PmWiki. This particular wiki platform has been a reliable and highly-customizable tool for both my personal projects and for client sites. In one case, I used the PmWiki tool to establish an accessible and easy-to-edit site that served as a style guide reference for virtual team members scattered across at three continents. The initial version of the site was set up in an afternoon and then enhanced with an additional few hours of work in the following weeks.
My point is that wikis, while possibly not the most evolved applications for ease-of-use, can be set up by the people who have the time, interest and skills to wade through the esoteric mark-up and then turned over to the target end-users. The wikis can have plugins added to make editing easier. There can also be an acknowledged learning curve that makes it necessary for new users to take some time to become familiar with a new tool. There are new applications being written every day. In some cases, such as in government, the applications are tested and tweaked to make them as user-friendly as possible. However, it is a simple truth that all new users of an online tool will need to be introduced to even the simplest operations. People can be very adaptable but they often resist change – even if it will make their lives simpler.
Web developers, when functioning as consultants for their clients, may need to consider the necessity of not only building new systems but also delivering, as a standard component, some basic training to ensure that their clients not only enjoy the new website/CMS but appreciate how to make the most of its features.
I somewhat agree. Users that I encounter often don’t grasp the concept of being able to change content and link pages; the fundamental concepts of a Wiki environment.
The SharePoint Wiki is an example of this basic environment. Even though users understand that they are responsible for the content and are encouraged to contribute, there continues to be reluctance with most users to contribute or even make simple corrections, instead they take the time to email another user and suggest they make the change.
Many Wiki’s, pmWiki included rely on plug-ins to improve usability and functionality, but until the generational, human changes take place it will be awhile before we fully embrace these type of tools and the 90-9-1 rule will persist.
I recently worked with a potential client who uses Wiki for all its manuals and policies for internal use (i.e., employees) and customers. My question (concern?) is this — doesn’t a compnay lose control of the content when anyone authorized can make changes?
The basic foundation of using wikis is that the people who are permitted to make changes will do so with the interests of the company/organization in mind. While unmoderated changes could lead to confusion, it seems appropriate to allow employees to make changes and then consider how moderation of the changes will be implemented. One option is to enable any new users to suggest edits and then have the changes be placed in a queue for review by the wiki’s managers. Another option is to select specific employees to oversee pages or sections of the company’s wiki and they become responsible for ensuring consistency in content and accuracy of details.
In my experience so far, employees who are interested in using and contributing to wikis are far more likely to use them constructively rather than seek to insert erroneous details or remove information that is needed by the company. One example is the US Department of State’s wiki for its employees. The information on the system is edited by people who are using their real names rather than anonymous pseudonyms and the user base is growing. Rather than adding unnecessary details, the wiki pages offer insights and examples of experiences and best practices that employees can relate to and build upon.