What lies beyond the wiki

Talk, as they say, is cheap. To some this is a very good thing. It’s never been easier to gather up dialogue using tools for collaboration. In a committed wiki, everyone has a point of view.

But what lies beyond the wiki? Converting talk into action is not so easy for a whole host of reasons.

Some people are simply not motivated to do more than talk. The power of the voice online is a tempting offer to deliver a stream of consciousness that’s attractive to many for the fame simply of being seen.

Once the bonding starts to happen online, collaboration tools like wikis operate through a series of responses to develop a cumulative strength of opinion, and some consensus, but not always.

The wiki is also the domain of cyber-bullying where the egos of thread contributors can be trounced by dominant group members, overwhelmed by points of view so vehement they simply fold, cease to contribute, or exit stage left.

The significance of leadership within wikis is I think heavily underestimated. Failing to recognize that dominant personalities can stifle creativity in other participants, failing to recognize that good leadership is important within a democratic wiki, can prevent wikis from achieving anything at all.

The real opportunity of the wiki is to move beyond talk into valuable and productive collaboration and for many the challenge about how best to do that is upon them.

When digital type was first invented people went crazy with fonts. The sweet shop was just too tasty, the range available just too big, for people not to gorge themselves until typographic indigestion set in. Something had to be done. All the fonts were there, but no-one could actually read anything.

So it is with wikis, where the temptation to add something, to be seen to be seen, to have the last word, can have a massive impact. Sometimes, it’s a good thing just to let an idea be, just as it is; wikis rarely offer that option.

For those who want to go above and beyond the wiki, the real value is in adding to good ideas by firstly letting them rest. A good idea takes time to assimilate and be truly appreciated for what it is.

Contributing to a good idea is then not so much about talk at all, it requires action. Accepting the challenge to step up a gear and get practical, developing a methodology that proves the concept, solving problems, taking responsibility for applying and making it work in certain areas, helping in a hands-on way to iron out the kinks, is a lot harder than telling.

In a streamlined world, and in either real or the virtual environments, the best contributors are prepared to make a commitment to the thread that way, by moving into production. Are yours?

  • http://www.nowsquared.com J.D. Stein

    Fascinating post, Anne. I suspect part of your inspiration comes from your experience at Triiibes.
    One challenge of moving beyond talk in a wiki is not only motivation, but time.
    To move beyond talk to create something remarkable takes a significant time commitment from all parties involved. One aspect of blatant integrity is not to commit to create something remarkable with other wiki participants unless one is able and willing to commit the time to see it through.
    I’ve been hesitant to engage in some of the recent initiatives on Triiibes because I know I won’t have the time to give it my best efforts.
    I also think the nature of a wiki allows for less than full commitment. It is easy to drop in and talk, and then drop out when life gets busy. Such sporadic engagement isn’t always possible in the offline world. The offline world has a way of interrupting and demanding attention while the wiki stays hidden in cyberspace, making it easier to ignore when other matters are pressing.
    I have found wikis work best when they are just a tool to collaborate efficiently on projects and relationships that exist mainly in the offline world.

  • http://rahuldeodhar.blogspot.com Rahul Deodhar

    Fantastic post – I am experience moving from talk to action

  • http://profile.typepad.com/1221565777s23196 CoCreatr

    Right on the money, Anne. As far as I have experienced wikis they help to preserve tiny flashes of ingenuity and harness small slices of time by encouraging to build on top of what is already there. Wikis focus energy that may be dispersed in clarifying or discussion towards growing an information product usable for others.
    Before I log in, I check: Good enough? Is what I am about to add making it better? Is my time worth it for others?
    Wiki feels like a park or a garden. To grow it will take seeding, breeding, feeding, and weeding. Occasional warm rain from above helps. Plus commitment, time and the occasional evicting of one who tramples the roses. And encouragement what it’s really about for those who go to church just to be seen praying.
    What works better than wiki with blogs, what’s the next curve?