|
Wiki
Mar 20, 2007 16:26:09 GMT 4
Post by Phil on Mar 20, 2007 16:26:09 GMT 4
Anybody feel like learning a new skill such as defacing a wiki? Then ElearnEnable is the place for you. As always, it's open for all to edit, either sign up for an account or post as A. Nonymous. It's up to you. Have fun.
elearnenable (2007) Elearnenable. Retrieved from elearnenable.wetpaint.com/
|
|
salwa
Founding Member
Posts: 10
|
Wiki
Mar 20, 2007 22:52:17 GMT 4
Post by salwa on Mar 20, 2007 22:52:17 GMT 4
That's cool I changed the font and it worked, so how can we trust the cotnent of a wiki if anybody can hack in and change it??? Salwa
|
|
reggie
Founding Member
Posts: 7
|
Wiki
Mar 21, 2007 20:20:37 GMT 4
Post by reggie on Mar 21, 2007 20:20:37 GMT 4
Hi Salwa,
You have a 'gardener'. Someone who keeps an eye on it and takes out any graffiti. Happily, we're all pretty responsible people here (I hope!) and so we shouldn't have too much trouble with the rabble....
Reggie
|
|
|
Wiki
Mar 23, 2007 11:59:36 GMT 4
Post by Phil on Mar 23, 2007 11:59:36 GMT 4
That's cool ...so how can we trust the cotnent of a wiki if anybody can hack in and change it??? Salwa Hi Salwa. That's the good (and bad) things about wikis. Anybody can edit them and so it opens up the world of multiple voices, shared knowledge creation for all - not limited to a few specialists. However, how can you trust the veracity of what's been written in a world where everybody with a computer is a potential author? I've just found a nice link to this. As Reggie has said, there are certain ways to "control" the content on wikis which involve changing the settings so that only registered users can post, make it closed group postings (so only those nominated can add content), add moderators to watch the edits, etc. However, I set it up for all and sundry, since some of our group may wish to add to the page(s) but may not wish to sign up.
Daniels, L. and Johnson, A. (2007). The word on Wikipedia: Trust but verify. Retrieved from MSNBC and NBC News www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17740041/, March 25, 2007
|
|
|
Wiki
Mar 25, 2007 11:12:26 GMT 4
Post by Jane Ross on Mar 25, 2007 11:12:26 GMT 4
Hi Everyone, I'd never even heard of a wiki before today. I assume the 'gardener' (as described in LeFever, 2004) would be able to retrace the updates and backtrack to remove unwanted changes? Is that how it works? I'm not so sure that Wikis are such a great thing. At least when you post a message on a message board it has a defined writer. A wiki seems so vunerable as you can change all of it - corrupt all of it! Lamb (2004) tells us that a wiki is a WideOpenSpace for collaborative learning. My problem is if the contributer doesn't add their name - like we did with our online activity EDU5471: ERGONOMICS how will we know who did what. Yes I know that the point is a collaborative result and you could include only registered users, but what if someone changed the entire content and made it only reflect a single view point. I mean it could still happen, couldn't it? Jane
|
|
|
Wiki
Mar 25, 2007 14:30:02 GMT 4
Post by Phil on Mar 25, 2007 14:30:02 GMT 4
Hi Everyone, I'd never even heard of a wiki before today. I assume the 'gardener' (as described in LeFever, 2004) would be able to retrace the updates and backtrack to remove unwanted changes? Is that how it works? Hi Jane, I'm not familar with the "Gardener" term. but a quick serach brought this. There are also wikignomes I have used wikis alot for gaming. This is a sample page I setup and collobrated/ing in the continuous creation of. Anybody is able to add to or delete extracts from the page. There is a revert buton that also lets you reset the page to any previous edit. Of course, this can cause problems which lead to " edit wars", " flaming" and in extreme cases, IP " Vandal Banning" by Moderators. Not all wikis allow anoymous posting, the one I refered to earlier doesn't. You must have a login name and the IP is recorded. Also, it provides a timestamp feature. This posts a link to the writers user:page as well as date and time of creation. Copying an extract also brings up a Retrieved from link. With regard to anonymity, there have been cases in the states of wiki writers being unmasked because of what they have written concerning rival politicians. Also, message boards can allow undefined writers. This board is an example. It allows people to post as guests and they can create any name they wish to. You, for example, have posted as Jane Ross. However, is this the " True Jane Ross?" We have no way of knowing. As to their value, again it depends. They could be very useful for large companies to record the pooled knowledge of their various employees. Here, you have a private wiki and all the posts are accountable. This is not to say that public wikis are worthless. It just means that you must tread carefully. As in the printed word, don't believe something just because it's in black and white. The "Sunday Sport" newspaper is a classic example with its " WWII Bomber Found on Moon" headline. Buyer Beware!It depends. It allows multiple voices, multiple truths and also multiple lies. It depends on whether who wrote what is the thing that is important or if it's the creation of the knowledge in itself. If it's the former, then one can configure the settings so that only registered users can post or edit, if the latter then it's a free-for-all. Could and frequently does. Accepted practise is NPOV but this is why you need moderators and communities of practice in which the group actively creates the rules of acceptable behaviour in their community. Like all societies, policemen and Laws are inevitable unless anarchy is what is trying to be achieved. BTW, I would be interested in the reference for that LeFerer quote if you could dig it out. I found a few links but they were on blogs vs discussion boards not wikis.
C2. (2007). Wiki Gnomes. Retrieved March 25th, 2007 from c2.com/cgi/wiki?WikiGnomeJoi ito. (2007) WikiGardener. Retrieved March, 25th, 2007 from joi.ito.com/joiwiki/WikiGardenerUrbandead Wiki. (2007). Molebank Citizen Volunteers. Retrieved March 25th, 2007 from wiki.urbandead.com/index.php/Molebank_Citizen_VolunteersWikipedia. (2007). Wikipedia. Retrieved March 25th, 2007 from Wikipedia
|
|
salwa
Founding Member
Posts: 10
|
Wiki
Mar 26, 2007 20:38:44 GMT 4
Post by salwa on Mar 26, 2007 20:38:44 GMT 4
Hi Phil and all,
While reading "Wikis described in plain English", I came up across the main limitations fo the use of wikis: It does not show chronology or attributes. I found this quite disturbing especially if the wiki is to be used for threaded discussions.
Salwa
|
|
|
Wiki
Mar 27, 2007 7:55:22 GMT 4
Post by Phil on Mar 27, 2007 7:55:22 GMT 4
Hi Phil and all, While reading "Wikis described in plain English", I came up across the main limitations fo the use of wikis: It does not show chronology or attributes. I found this quite disturbing especially if the wiki is to be used for threaded discussions. Salwa Hi Salwa, Depends what you mean by chronology. Since it is a page written about something, say for example the cities in England, it would not be important to show which information was recorded at what time. We would be after the facts about the English cities not that Mr X wrote about London on the 19th March and Mrs Y. wrote about Manchester on the 5th of Feb. If, one wanted to know when something was added and by whom, then this infomartion is viewable. One has to go into the history tab and check two versions to show the changes. like this article. The changes between the two edits are highlighted in red. As for attributes, I'm not sure what you mean by this. Could you give some more details? Regarding discussions, there isn't "accepted practice" regarding the protocol for this. The community using the pages must define how they wish this to work. That said, discussions normally take place on the talk pages, since the article is supposedly Non Point Of View. Whether the newest entries are place at the top of the thread or bottom is normally explained by a note at the head of the talk section, though not always, and the strictness of the enforcement depends on who the moderator for the page is. However, personally, I don't see wikis as ideal tools for discussions. Discussion forums are better suited to this.To my mind, wikis are more for repositories of shared/ sharing knowledge.
Wikipedia. (2007). The Urbandead wiki. Retrieved 25th March, 2007 from en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Urban_Dead&diff=115999294&oldid=105828615Wikipedia. (2007). The Urbandead wiki: Talk pages Retrieved 25th March, 2007 from en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Urban_Dead
|
|
|
Wiki
Mar 28, 2007 5:51:57 GMT 4
Post by joweston on Mar 28, 2007 5:51:57 GMT 4
Hi Salwa and Phil,
When I took the Emerging Environments unit with Peter Evans back in 2005 (pre KG), we had to collaborate in groups on Wiki pages. It was a struggle for many of us as in some cases students tried to use the Wiki pages for discussion (modifying the html to show an inline thread was painstaking at best). We concluded, like Phil, that Wikis while great for a collaboration project, are not the optimal forum for discussions. I personally also find the talk pages lacking in structure for a true threaded discussion.
Cheers, Jo
|
|
|
Wiki
Mar 28, 2007 8:59:54 GMT 4
Post by Phil on Mar 28, 2007 8:59:54 GMT 4
Hi Salwa and Phil, When I took the Emerging Environments unit with Peter Evans back in 2005 (pre KG), we had to collaborate in groups on Wiki pages. It was a struggle for many of us as in some cases students tried to use the Wiki pages for discussion (modifying the html to show an inline thread was painstaking at best). We concluded, like Phil, that Wikis while great for a collaboration project, are not the optimal forum for discussions. I personally also find the talk pages lacking in structure for a true threaded discussion. Cheers, Jo Yeah, Jo I've also used them to take part in discussions, like here but I was not overly impressed with the results. Once you've learnt the code to create stepped threads, it was simple enough but I think wikis, in general are not a great tool for this. I'd be interested to find out if you know of any studies on the use of wikis for the dissemination of company knowledge.
Urbandead wiki. (2007). UDWiki:Moderation/Policy_Discussion/Group_Pages. Retrieved 28th March, 2007 from wiki.urbandead.com/index.php/UDWiki:Moderation/Policy_Discussion/Group_Pages
|
|
jeorge
Founding Member
Posts: 6
|
Wiki
Apr 16, 2007 7:16:13 GMT 4
Post by jeorge on Apr 16, 2007 7:16:13 GMT 4
That's cool I changed the font and it worked, so how can we trust the cotnent of a wiki if anybody can hack in and change it??? Salwa That’s exactly right Salwa. As a wiki can be modified or changed by anyone with access or membership the credibility has to be challenged. The website Wikipedia is a perfect example of how effective and how ineffective a wiki can be. Wikipedia is a huge website that has just about anything and everything you need to know about any topic. Anyone with membership is able to log on and change or add to any wiki. Now this is great if the person making the changes is educated or has researched the topic, but more often then not the person could be inputting misleading or false information. There is no way to determine what information is valid and that is why websites such as Wikipedia should be taken with a grain of salt unless further research is accomplished by the reader. Wikipedia may be a good place to start in gathering a basic understanding of a topic but in my opinion it should never be a reader’s only source of information. Jeorge
|
|
|
Wiki
Apr 16, 2007 14:38:59 GMT 4
Post by Phil on Apr 16, 2007 14:38:59 GMT 4
|
|
jeorge
Founding Member
Posts: 6
|
Wiki
Apr 18, 2007 8:29:32 GMT 4
Post by jeorge on Apr 18, 2007 8:29:32 GMT 4
Thanks for those links Phil.
I can see how a corporate wiki can differ from a general wiki thanks to those links.
I think with wikis it all comes down to who the people are who are updating them and how educated they are in regards to the wiki’s topic.
With a corporate wiki the people updating it would (hopefully) be sensible with what they change or add and would be relatively informed and educated and not many mistakes would be made. With bigger wikis that have a large number of people that are members or visit their regularly, any mistakes made should be picked up relatively quickly due to the number of people.
Using wikis to share resources and references is also a great advantage as the list of references that are present can be added to easily when users find more links and resources. So the list should grow without the original poster having to add anything themselves.
I think wikis are definitely more a group work online tool compared to other forums of online tools like blogs or forums.
Jeorge
|
|
|
Wiki
Apr 18, 2007 13:42:35 GMT 4
Post by Phil on Apr 18, 2007 13:42:35 GMT 4
Thanks for those links Phil. No probs. I've been looking at corporate wikis myself for an ex-boss who has a couple of thousand employees in multiple different fields, so I'm interested in this aspect. But surely this is the same with even booked based knowledge. I think the big difference with wikis, blogs web, sites etc is that before electronic media, you had to convince a publisher that you had something to say and that people would " buy" the book. There would be a financial return on their investment. With electronic media, this check and balance has been removed. People no longer have to prove the worth of their opinion. For example, now you are reading this and analysing what I've said, before electronic media, nobody would have paid any heed to me, including my wife! For all those doubters of wikis out there, I'll include this link, lest I be included in the left-wing Wackopedia camp! LOL. I think there is also the question of public shame. Although the Majchrzak article (2005:101) said that gaining professional reputation was a low factor in the incentive (23%-29%), she did not say whether the fear of being seen to add erronous information (in front of one's peers/boss) would have an effect on one's researching of the material. It has been suggested ( Alder & De Alfaro 2006) that a reputation system, based on the length of time between reverts, may help users to judge the quality of the information presented in public wikis. Majchrzak (2005:103) actually distinguishes between different types of wiki user depending on their type of contribution - adders, minimalists, synthesizers and multiplexers, these last two are the editor-type people. Yeah, this is the useful thing about wikis - shared, collaborative, easily updated knowledge. I agree. I think the fact that it is presented as a single article (albeit with the possibility of author accredition or sectioning of the article) lends support to this view of a community viewpoint. While forums can collect knowledge together in a category, board or thread (such as this one on wikis) it is not presented as an intergrated whole and the writing/knowledge does not flow as it would in a wiki. As for blogs, although they can be team blogs, the fact that they are organised chronologically for me suggests that they are a diary/ newsletter based form of communication.
Adler, T.B. & De Alfaro, L. (2006). A Content-Driven Reputation System for the Wikipedia. Technical Report ucsc-crl-06-18, School of Engineering, University of California, Santa Cruz. Retrieved 16, 04, 2007 from works.bepress.com/luca_de_alfaro/3/Askanas, M., Correa, A. & Correa, P. (2006). Wikipedia: A Techno-Cult of Ignorance. Retrieved 17th April, 2007 from www.aetherometry.com/antiwikipedia/awp_index.html
|
|
|
Wiki
May 2, 2007 14:05:52 GMT 4
Post by Phil on May 2, 2007 14:05:52 GMT 4
OK. I know that there are some of you out there who hold that wikis are bad because we don't know how to trust the authority of what's been written. Well it seems that there are people who believe that this doesn't hold only for wikis but also for the whole of the social networking software, collaborative tools that we know and love, blogs, YouTube etc. Agree, disagree, (don't know, care less). Well check out this link for a look at the argument.
Appleyard, B. (2007). The web is dead; long live the webAs the internet evolves, the backlash begins. But is it really going to destroy our civilisation? In Times Online retrieved May, 2007 from technology.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/tech_and_web/the_web/article1673425.eceKeen, A (2007). T HE CULT OF THE AMATEUR: How Blogs, Wikis, Social Networking, and the Digital World are Assaulting our Economy, Culture and Values. Retrieved May, 2007 from andrewkeen.typepad.com/the_great_seduction/2006/10/my_book_now_not.htmlSurowiecki, J. (2004) The Wisdom of Crowds. Random House Inc. www.randomhouse.com/features/wisdomofcrowds/Steiner, P. (2003). On the internet nobody know you're a dog. In the New Yorker. Retrieved May 2007 from www.cartoonbank.com/search_results_category.asp?sitetype=1§ion=all&keyword=steiner+dog+internet&advanced=0&x=0&y=0
|
|