InfoScope

When I first heard about Wikipedia I thought it was a really crazy idea.  I mean, would you trust just anyone to provide you with authoritative information?  Is this a source that you could cite on a research paper?  While I continue to have a few issues to resolve in that department, I have to admit that my views on wikis have changed considerably.  Wikis are a great way to promote virtual community in a way that’s not arbitrary.   If someone has information that the community can use, it is easy for him or her share.  Changes made are completely visible to all, so if the group disagrees with revisions, the page can simply be changed back  (“soft security”).  Brian Lamb points out that there are usually more fixers than breakers and in this way, wikis have a self-regulatory function.    Wikis are also dynamic and they challenge the notion of ownership.  Lamb notes that the content of wikis is “ego-less, time-less and never finished.”  They can have many authors and the content may continually evolve. 

On the negative side, it is possible for the site to be vandalized, and the content can become disorganized if not tended to.  Wikis often lack an organizational structure, which can also be confusing to new users.  Meredith Farkas likens the wiki administrator to a gardener tending flowers (pages), getting rid of weeds (spam) to promote growth (new ideas).  However, in the true sense of community, the care and upkeep of the wiki should be in the hands of the users.  And this will require trust in the community.  It will require handing over some of the control that authorities have traditionally held.   On this note, a final quote from Lamb:

Change is happening. What remains unknown is whether educators, institutions, and developers will join (or coexist with) the revolutionary forces or whether they’ll stand their ground and simply be overrun.