5 Differences between Wikipedia & Enterprise Wikis
Enterprise wikis and Internet wikis (of which Wikipedia and Wikitravel are examples) provide the same basic function - the ability to edit content in a web browser - but they differ in several significant ways:
1. Spaces
Internet wikis often have all content housed in one “place,” so that any user can see the entirety of the site’s content all together. Enterprise wikis allow for information to be organized in spaces (individual wikis that are part of the enterprise wiki) based on project, department, team, etc., and access to those spaces can be granted to specific users.
2. Security
Internet wikis are often open for anyone to read and edit, sometimes without even requiring one to login. Enterprise wikis are typically not open to the public or partially open, i.e. some spaces are open but others are not. To access an enterprise wiki, you have to login, and your account has to have permissions set so that you can access particular spaces. Permissions can also be set at the page level, so that a person might login, access a particular space, and have editing rights on some pages, but only viewing rights on others.
3. Integration
Enterprise wikis are designed to allow user account, group, and access information to be provisioned from authentication and authorization systems like LDAP and Active Directory, so that a person can login to the enterprise wiki with the same credentials that they use to access email, the company network, etc.
4. Typical Uses
Enterprise wikis are often used for:
- collaboratively building documentation
- creating and maintaining knowledge bases
- project management
- gathering tacit knowledge (knowledge not related to any specific project but essential to getting things done in an organization)
- meeting management, from agenda to minutes and action items.
Generally, an enterprise wiki will be used in a much wider variety of ways than an Internet wiki, because it is intended to support the wide-ranging needs of the people within an organization. Internet wikis tend to be used primarily for one main application, as is the case with Wikipedia.
5. Contribution Level
On public wikis, we often speak of the 90-9-1 Theory, which explains that 90% of users will “lurk” or simply browse pages, 9% will contribute occasionally, and 1% will contribute frequently, and account for most of the contributions to the wiki.
On an enterprise wiki, the contribution level is much higher based on the fact that people are contributing as part of the daily course of their work, as opposed to voluntarily contributing to a public, Internet wiki. This contribution isn’t necessarily compulsory, as a top-down mandate will usually hinder more than help wiki adoption. Instead, it’s the result of well-executed wiki adoption strategies that place the wiki at the center of the core activities of a team, such as meeting management, building a support knowledge base, or collaboratively writing documentation for a product.
Subscribe to Grow Your Wiki
Related Posts:
- Sure, Wikis Are Cool… But Can They Help My Business?
- Lombardi Software: Collaborative information development using wikis and DITA
- Socialtext Open - enterprise Wiki under an Open Source license
- Gilbane Report: Near-Time adds enterprise permissions to wiki/blog collaboration tool
- When to wiki? When not to? 4 Tips to Consider
RSS Feed
Updates by Email
We're using ClearWiki. And I gotta be honest...it's the best wiki I've ever used!" on 
4 Comments, Comment or Ping
MB
and one striking similarity : in both cases, wikipedia and enterprise wikis, some will ask : Can I trust the wiki content ?
As there is no approval before publishing, some feel uncomfortable in trusting a wiki content, even in the enterprise context.
Aug 7th, 2008
Stewart Mader
@MB - I think you’re looking at it through the wrong lens. The traditional way we think about content is to assign someone to write a draft, which is then reviewed, changed, and approved.
A wiki should be used for activities that don’t need levels of approval before publishing, and to influence a change to practices that require fewer approvals. Here’s how:
Get your team to produce content together from the start. In this model, you don’t need approvals because people agree to be involved and provide constant input throughout the process, instead of only getting involved at a late stage to review and approve what others have produced.
The notion of approvals has been created as a response to the practice where someone (usually a manager) is not involved in content production because they’re usually busy attending meetings. When an organization chooses to adjust the way they work at all levels, including better meeting management using a wiki, managers and others who would traditionally only approve content can now get more involved at that earlier stage, which reduces the need for the approval process.
This is a different way of thinking about work, but it’s much more efficient for people at all levels. Inside an organization, you really shouldn’t have to worry about trust as much as you would on a public wiki. People are there to do their jobs, and an environment with a high level of trust is conducive to high quality work.
In a recent New York Times article on the US State Department’s Diplopedia, Eric M. Johnson of the department’s Office of eDiplomacy remarked about trust and wikis: “There are plenty of ways to commit career suicide; wikis are just the newest one.” So if people are really worried about trust, then it’s a much larger issue that’s really unrelated to the wiki.
Aug 7th, 2008
MB
Hi Stewart,
may be my point was a bit off topic.
Nonetheless, I guess points that may increase trust in the wiki content are :
* content production process as you have describe it
* space rights management : for example if you know that the “intranet network” section of the wiki is only editable by the network team, you may assume that the information found on that section is correct
* no anonymous edits allowed : so that everyone is held responsible for content he/she writes
* the wiki is the only place to find some information , that is there is no additional document to give information that is to be found on the wiki
Aug 8th, 2008
Stewart Mader
@MB Your latest points are right on target! Whenever I work with an organization on their internal wiki use, I advise them:
* To require names be associated with edits, because everyone should be able to take credit or be held accountable for their contributions.
* To make sure the structure of the wiki, i.e. the various spaces reflect the existing structure of the organization. As you say, people inside the organization should be able to rely on the idea that content in the “intranet network” space was authored by that team.
* The wiki should be a Magnet for information, so that people get used to the idea that it’s both the go-to place to find what they need, and the place to add new information others will need.
Stewart
Aug 8th, 2008
Reply to “5 Differences between Wikipedia & Enterprise Wikis”