Is a wiki “yet another piece of formal documentation”?
That’s what James MacLennan says:
After talking with some of these folks, I’ve realized that using a blog and responding to a post is just like eMail – it’s just stored in a database, accessed using the browser, and conveniently linked to the project. The wiki, on the other hand, is Yet Another piece of formal documentation – and who likes to do that?
Wow. Comparing a blog to email. That’s like…comparing apples to oranges.
Let’s look at each part of this statement. Email is not conveniently linked to a project. It’s confined to your inbox with all your other messages about all your other projects – not to mention spam, endless newsletters and emails from Amazon, Borders, and Petco.
Unlike your blog, email is stored in a database that the average user has no control over. Blogging software gives you access to your entire database of posts through a web inteface (if you’re a savvy user, you can even directly access the database itself). And you can migrate from one platform to another reatively easily.
While blogs are accessed primarily through the browser, most corporate platforms like Exchange primarily make use of desktop clients like Outlook. And browser access still trails far behind the desktop client.
I once worked for a large university that used Exchange/Outlook as its primary email platform. The desktop client worked just fine on a PC. But Outlook Web Access only worked properly in Internet Explorer (certain features, like search and the ability to mark messages unread, were “crippled” in other browsers). Also IE is available only for Windows, so Mac and UNIX/Linux users were out of luck.
You wouldn’t have problems like that with a blog.
Now on to the statement about wikis: “Yet another piece of formal documentation.” Documentation is a product. A Wiki is a tool – a means of producing that product. For a team that needs to assemble knowledge collectively, a wiki removes unnecessary complication like sending documents around as email attachments, then trying to piece separate streams of content together in an unnatural and time-consuming way.
It makes the process so simple, efficient, and representative of how people interact that the end product is better – and easier to maintain.
In his commentary on MacLennan’s post, Dennis McDonald makes an excellent point about our responsibility to better understand this new landscape of tools:
Share Is a wiki “yet another piece of formal documentation”?We are no longer limited to telephone, email, and personal meetings to communicate and collaborate; the more we know how to evaluate and incorporate newer channels in our management processes, the better off we will be.
Email
Twitter
RSS
Dennis McDonald says:
Jan 24th, 2008
Yes, comparing blogging to emailing may in actuality be like comparing “apples to oranges.” But wouldn’t it be nice if we could say to folks, “Look, using the blog is just like using email, but instead of sending messages to a bunch of individuals you can send many of them to single place where all those people can see them at the same time.”
I know that sounds like a sales pitch but when you actually study the work flow there are some similarities.
And, thanks for the link!
- Dennis
Stewart Mader says:
Jan 24th, 2008
Dennis,
I heartily agree! Your expression of the similarity is much better than James’ because it expresses the general similarity, but points out where the difference is that makes the blog better. Of course it’s a sales pitch, but if the product matches the pitch, then that’s ok with me!
Cheers,
Stewart
Jim MacLennan says:
Jan 24th, 2008
Thanks for the shout out, even if we have different opinions.
And yes, Dennis has it right – the analogy is for making the concept more palatable to the end user, unfamiliar with blogging.
It’s not about salesmanship, it’s about change management.
Jim MacLennan says:
Jan 24th, 2008
Actually – - I just re-read my own quote …
I said “a post is just like eMail – it’s _just_ stored in a database …” yada (emphasis added)
I am _contrasting_ a blog post with an email – not _equating_
And on wikis – the point is people may _see_ it as formal document. Even though the wiki (as a tool) made the document easier to edit – the wiki (as something that I’m reading) can take on the character of a formal document.
Some wiki content can be informal, ad hoc, and some can be taken as valid reference material. For example – wikipedia – easy to edit, sure, but often cited as an authoritative resource; a formal document.
- jpm
Michael Kogan says:
Jan 28th, 2008
“…For a team that needs to assemble knowledge collectively, a wiki removes unnecessary complication like sending documents around as email attachments, then trying to piece separate streams of content together in an unnatural and time-consuming way…”
Indeed, but if you send mails with links to documents, rather than with docs as attachments it would be pretty similar as Wiki-generated notifications about document change, wouldn’t it? The documents are stored in a central placed (a network drive) just like they are stored in a Wiki DB.
Stewart Mader says:
Jan 29th, 2008
Jim,
Thanks for your comments – I think that you’ve hit on one of the big gray areas. Since a wiki is just a tool after all, it can be as formal or informal as people want it to be. What we need to do in the near future is get to a more standard “way” of communicating when content is informal and to be regarded as such, and when it is authoritative.
I’ll be reading more of your blog from now on!
Cheers,
Stewart
Stewart Mader says:
Jan 29th, 2008
Michael,
The difference between a wiki and a shared drive is that with a wiki, one can immediately see and edit the content of a page.
When one accesses files on a shared drive, they have to be downloaded, edited (and you need the right software to do that), and uploaded back to the shared drive. The file also needs to be named so others can see which version it is.
So the two may not seem all that different conceptually, but in practice they diverge considerably. The wiki removes all barriers to actually _editing_ content, while the shared drive scenario has a lot more steps before and after editing content. That’s what limits participation.
Cheers,
Stewart