Wiki Editing Etiquette « michael’s thoughts

Wiki Editing Etiquette

This post is mostly directed to readers of the DSC shownotes wiki although input from anyone with experience contributing to wikis would be appreciated. Or really just anyone in general.

I setup my wiki shownotes page for Adam Curry’s podcast because it seemed like a fun project and he said he would appreciate someone setting one up. I’ve never run a wiki before, so it’s something of a learning experience for me. But I like learning new things. The technology is straightforward, but the social aspects of a community edited web site are more subtle.

When I frst set up the web page, not that many people were visiting it and I was doing most of the writing of the actual show notes. My thought at that time was that for any community to get off the ground, someone needs to jumpstart it. There’s a chicken and egg problem. If there is no content available, then readers won’t be inspired to get involved. But if readers aren’t inspired to get involved and contribute, there will be no content. So I figured if I started doing the shownotes myself then folks would see the potential and it would take off. Perhaps even in directions I had not anticipated.

Well, I’m happy to say that this is exactly what’s happened. Many times when I go to do the daily update, someone has gotten there first and added at least some content to the page already. That’s great. This is the whole point of wikis. Other times I might get a jump on the other readers and do the initial update, and then many other readers will come in and tweak things, upload images, etc. so that the page ends up looking much better than what I did initially.

This sense of group ownership is the whole point of a wiki community, and it’s working exactly as it should. I’ve received e-mails from some wiki contributors saying how much they enjoy updating the site.

So here’s the question/concern…I suspect that many listeners will visit the page for a given show probably only once or twice. If the information they’re looking for is there, they’ll grab it, and move on. But the web page will continue to form after they’ve gone, and they won’t see the “final product” (of course who can define final for a web site that may be edited at any point). I know that I’m a bit “anal” and I like to be thorough and create a really comprehensive page that’s complete and good looking.

At the same time, I don’t want to be dictatorial or sap the enthusiasm of the other contributors. While I don’t claim that I’m so all knowing that I would even be able to generate a page that needs no improvement, if I go through and link everything, add a bunch of images, etc. then later readers may not feel moved to contribute. I’m afraid that will break the community of the wiki. At the same time I don’t want early viewers of the page to see a less rich experience. So how do we balance that? Am I insane? Does anyone even care?

This entry was posted on Friday, October 7th, 2005 at 3:32 pm and is filed under life, tech.

mridley

Yeah, on the subject of locking old pages...that's something that's sort of been in the back of my mind. I haven't done it yet, and so far there hasn't really been a need as far as vandalism, etc.

I think if we can get away without locking pages that's better since, again, the point of a wiki community is communal editing. Also it may be that six months down the line something in today's podcast becomes very topical and a lot of people are going back and re-listening to it and rereading the shownotes and there may be additional discussion or information at that time. I don't know. That's a hypothetical. I just take the opinion that I know I cannot forsee every possible future outcome so I'd like to lean on the side of flexibility.

Nevertheless, I do agree that you make a very valid point regarding content stability. Thanks so much for your input!

-m

mridley

John-

Thanks so much for your input. I completely agree that formalizing it is not a good idea at all. I think nothing kills a community effort more quickly than excessive and unnecessary formal structure. I'm just trying to get a sense of other people's opinions so we can come up with an informal "best practices" or wiki etiquette so that everyone continues to feel included. That's the point of my soliciting input.

-m

Jack

I have no problem w/ you starting the template and going through and cleaning up stuff. I like having a little formatting guidance, and there's probably a core group that listen and contribute to the wiki.

During the week, people may or may not see the "complete" page. But the nature of a podcast, you could be listening at any time, days later even. If something interested you, and you're aware of the wiki, you'd go back to check on a link that wasn't there previously, or you'll search it out and add it yourself.

Andrew

Generally, I'd say let it ride. It's impossible to know just what kind of new innovation may be laying dormant in all those readers' minds. If someone else starts the page, just take a shepherd's watch and make sure it comes together okay. If no one starts a page for a DSC, they obviously it's up to you since you're now the paid staffer.

I agree that it will be very difficult to know if the DSC page is complete or not, since Wiki by it's nature continues to breath long after a page is created. But perhaps we need a flashing graphic at the top of the page that says "In Progress" or "Draft" to signify that the page's content and structure are still being fleshed out. Then, once the primary content is fixed showing all the time coded entries that you want to have entered, you could change the graphic to signify "Complete" or "Final". This would be a signal to others that it's okay to add their $0.02...

The other obs is this, in light of your concern that some nefarious creatures may decide to vandelize the Wiki, it might make sense to lock the DSC pages after a few days. I'd say that probably after a week, the full content of the show, graphical links and listener feedback will have pretty much become quiescent. You can confirm by looking at the page history to see how recent the last change was.

This might help you to avoid any administrative headaches in the future.

Just my $0.02... :P

Andrew

John Glasscock

Michael,

I agree with Christopher Penn. On the one hand, there should be someone, like a node manager, who has ultimate proximate authority for the wiki, so if there are no show notes after an undefined but finite amount of time, then they should get cracking. But isn't it nice to see others stepping up to contribute? I also don't think that formalizing the structure is necessary as long as things are working out and you don't feel like you are being used. You are doing a great job with this and I hope you find some gainful employment soon enough. I just lost my job too so otherwise I'd be addin' to your tip jar.

All the best!

mridley

Hm..that's an interesting point. I saw that someone added the RSS link for the Recent Changes page to the Main wiki page and I didn't really get why. I know that people want a proper podcast RSS feed, but that's definitely not it. So I was wondering what people use it for.

I hadn't really thought about general readers keeping track of the recent changes. I know I typically go over the recent changes page because I want to make sure that none of the pages are getting trashed, etc. (hasn't happened yet, knock on wood) but I hadn't really thought about general readers wanting to do that.

Now that you point it out it makes a lot of sense. Thanks for the comment! Keep 'em coming!

-m

Christopher Penn

I wouldn't worry about it too much. Once people see the changes, it's apparent that it's a work in progress. The RSS feed of recent changes is also helpful because it helps people keep up with what's new.