Wiki Problems

The big WikiProblems:

These result in very similar actions taken against wiki, but have different motivations. WikiSpam is motivated by commercial gain. WikiVandalism is motivated by the attention the vandal receives. EditWars are motivated by ego and sometimes pride.

I think WikiTrolling (a type of WikiVandalism aiming at community members instead of content) is motivated by the DarkSideOfHumanNature?. It is a common pattern that the Chinese has a saying, when translated, literally mean "watching inferno across the river bank". It is said but sometimes we can even be sadistic if we do not exercise better SelfManagement. -- DavidLiu

All three relate to the fact that wiki retains the most stubbornly-defended content. WikiVandalism and EditWars are carried on by people (mostly), so they eventually stop. WikiSpam is very stubbornly-defended, because it can be done by a bot - the perpetrators can get a lot of effective stubbornness for a little effort.

Basically, I don't think that spam or vandalism are real problems; any developer or community can find technical means for protection. The only real problem that I ever saw with wiki - and that's the reason why wiki is so interesting - is that is not a technical system primarily. You cannot push a button and have a wiki community. Wikis need a lot of things but especially people that respect each other, share expectations, share values and agree on certain forms of behaviour. Wiki is a social system primarily, it needs a culture. The problem or task is to grow the culture. -- HelmutLeitner

I totally agree. But people are very reluctant to openly discuss values and expectations, they'd rather just act. -- CostinCozianu

[rest of the discussion moved to WardsWikiProblemsDiscussion]

Re: "Wikis need a lot of things but especially people that respect each other, share expectations, share values and agree on certain forms of behaviour."

I've found that WikiZens have widely varying views on what "wiki values" should be. For example, some believe that "being right[1]" or "presenting the truth and only the truth" is far more important than "respect". There needs to be some form of judicial system on this wiki to reconcile the "sanctioned truth at all cost" versus "respect first" viewpoints. Even "respect" is subject to LaynesLaw, as people can be offended by a wide assortment is different things. --top

[1] Their own view of "right"

Really? Can you point to some recent examples? Most of this Wiki is about achieving a consensus on what is both right and true. The bulk of C2's Wikizens are both respectful and professionally qualified to talk about the matters that we discuss here. This is how we come to a synthesis of ideas that evolve into definitions.

Perhaps it is a matter of everything here devolving into LaynesLaw, but only after we hammer flat the definitions of our supporting terms. If we can't come to a single definition for an important term then we know we have a non-resolvable difference and no amount of mutual respect, expertise, or judicial involvement will settle that hash.

CategoryProblem