Comments on: Getting real about wikimania

JotSpot CEO Joe Kraus says wikis will be around--and flourishing--long after their initial 15 minutes of fame expire.

[Len Bullard]

WIKIs Don't Compete With Email

Wikis compete with spreadsheets.

Ever have to load all of those strung out comments from a review process into a database so the decisions and the money travel together?

Nothing is more powerful than a web page with and edit button.

[Len Bullard]

WIKIs Don't Compete With Email

Wikis compete with spreadsheets.

Ever have to load all of those strung out comments from a review process into a database so the decisions and the money travel together?

Nothing is more powerful than a web page with and edit button.

Mistaking input for output

"Nothing is more powerful than a web page for an edit button"

Wikis are great for getting data into a black box, they don't address the problem of getting data out of the black box. Nothing is more powerful than a good database, because this allows you to look at the relationships, tailor the queries, and ensure that all this data is reliable and available. Look around and you'll see 30 years of work improving these processes.

Don't mistake ease of writing for quality of reading.

[Bytesmiths]

An implementation detail

Good wikis have a database behind them, and can be readily
searched -- some even have SQL extensions, for end-user
queries. Almost all have a "Search" field or page.

I've been using wikis since Ward Cunningham first invented
them. Early versions were "write-only" systems, but that has all
changed.

The latest work I've done has been with groups of fairly
unsophisticated computer users (http://www.IslandSeeds.org). It
is amazing what they can accomplish!

Another "wiki must-have" is a good editor/moderator. The
newbies need to understand that they can do no wrong, but that
others may come along later and "clean up" things a bit. Without
one or more editor/moderators, a wiki can quickly disintegrate
into a "write only" site.

Part of wiki culture is that there is no "right or wrong," only
"better or worse." That which fights entropy is better, but that
doesn't mean one must think things through completely before
posting something!

The thing wikis do best is help define unknowns. If you already
know what you need, yea -- slap a front end onto a database.
But if you don't know if you're going to build a building, a
religion, or a concept, a wiki is the way to go. Once you get past
the brainstorming stage, THEN you can freeze your structure
into fifth normal form if you find that necessary.

[Len Bullard]

With An Edit Button

"Nothing is more powerful than a web page with and edit button."

With an edit button.

What the backend does is not what the most important part of the system cares about: the human. A single person may not write well. Most of them don't, but in mass, they determine what to say and how best to say it. That is why folksonomies rule over formal ontologies in actual use. My point was oldThink does this stuff with spreadsheets and as formal as that can be, it is a painful interface and not cheaply distributable. It's only virtue is naming the cells and columns to direct the edits.

I was part of the teams that spent years working on integrated bibliographic systems for hypermedia only to be handed our heads by one-way http links, gray pages, and PageRank. The power is not, as the other fellow said, in the implementation. It is in the ease of editing the content for the interested.

Yes, a moderator is very important. Every evolving system needs at least one strange attractor.

Mistaking input for output

"Nothing is more powerful than a web page for an edit button"

Wikis are great for getting data into a black box, they don't address the problem of getting data out of the black box. Nothing is more powerful than a good database, because this allows you to look at the relationships, tailor the queries, and ensure that all this data is reliable and available. Look around and you'll see 30 years of work improving these processes.

Don't mistake ease of writing for quality of reading.

[Bytesmiths]

An implementation detail

Good wikis have a database behind them, and can be readily
searched -- some even have SQL extensions, for end-user
queries. Almost all have a "Search" field or page.

I've been using wikis since Ward Cunningham first invented
them. Early versions were "write-only" systems, but that has all
changed.

The latest work I've done has been with groups of fairly
unsophisticated computer users (http://www.IslandSeeds.org). It
is amazing what they can accomplish!

Another "wiki must-have" is a good editor/moderator. The
newbies need to understand that they can do no wrong, but that
others may come along later and "clean up" things a bit. Without
one or more editor/moderators, a wiki can quickly disintegrate
into a "write only" site.

Part of wiki culture is that there is no "right or wrong," only
"better or worse." That which fights entropy is better, but that
doesn't mean one must think things through completely before
posting something!

The thing wikis do best is help define unknowns. If you already
know what you need, yea -- slap a front end onto a database.
But if you don't know if you're going to build a building, a
religion, or a concept, a wiki is the way to go. Once you get past
the brainstorming stage, THEN you can freeze your structure
into fifth normal form if you find that necessary.

[Len Bullard]

With An Edit Button

"Nothing is more powerful than a web page with and edit button."

With an edit button.

What the backend does is not what the most important part of the system cares about: the human. A single person may not write well. Most of them don't, but in mass, they determine what to say and how best to say it. That is why folksonomies rule over formal ontologies in actual use. My point was oldThink does this stuff with spreadsheets and as formal as that can be, it is a painful interface and not cheaply distributable. It's only virtue is naming the cells and columns to direct the edits.

I was part of the teams that spent years working on integrated bibliographic systems for hypermedia only to be handed our heads by one-way http links, gray pages, and PageRank. The power is not, as the other fellow said, in the implementation. It is in the ease of editing the content for the interested.

Yes, a moderator is very important. Every evolving system needs at least one strange attractor.

IT's About Time

I've been praying that someone develop VOIP security that works. Several times each day my Vonage system goes silent. It is always when I am normally out ant the office is closed.

When I return I check for a dial tone and frequently get nothing but dead silence.

I discovered that the activity lights on both the cable modem and the Sys-Link Vonage modem is going wild; so, I simply shut the computer down, wait a minute aand re-boot it. The problem is solved again I leave the computer inactive for about an hour or more.

So far I have received mos of my calls on my cell phone because the VOIP is call forwarded to it.

IT's About Time

I've been praying that someone develop VOIP security that works. Several times each day my Vonage system goes silent. It is always when I am normally out ant the office is closed.

When I return I check for a dial tone and frequently get nothing but dead silence.

I discovered that the activity lights on both the cable modem and the Sys-Link Vonage modem is going wild; so, I simply shut the computer down, wait a minute aand re-boot it. The problem is solved again I leave the computer inactive for about an hour or more.

So far I have received mos of my calls on my cell phone because the VOIP is call forwarded to it.