Wired magazine wrote an article about the wiki-phenomenon: online publications anyone can access, write, and edit.
I'm ambivalent. Wikis strike me as ultra-democratic, with all the freedom, abuse, and Tocquevillian logistical problems that go with that. Bakhtin and the anti-authorship crowd would approve. On the other hand, Wikipedia at least does seem to work, and I'm always consulting it about something or other.
Opinions?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
My company sells a commercial wiki that is quite popular because it helps small groups collect their thoughts and collaborate. Even in an organisation, there's room for abuse of these tools, but I haven't heard of any.
Hmm. That's good to know; I really haven't heard of much either.
Wikipedia has a definite problem with people putting really biased entries, or deleting or changing entries. However, there is a large group of people who regularly review changes, who manage to keep the system running exceptionally well.
PCS
It's democratic, but very useful in its own way. As long as academics exist, the formal world of knowledge will stay hierarchical and "aristocratic." I view wikipedia as a very useful supplement (not necessarily as reliable as a good periodical like the Economist or academic papers) but helpful nonetheless.
Wikipedia also seems quite balanced, overall.
Post a Comment