So, if wikis elide all claims to authorship, offer no protection of material, and allow any 5-year old child or racist bigot to edit a page, what good are they? Well, let us explore why so many wikis are able to flourish in the well-fertilized fields in which they are sown. They will, however, enable collaboration and teach us all something very important about what a true democracy is all about.
"They will not help a writer develop a personal voice. Matt Barton, provides a candid yet light hearted response to your concerns in a posting on a list, which is repeated here for convenience of access. What is to prevent such a website from anarchy?.Reflection Am I still concerned about the openness of wiki editing? Clearly this authoring model was not scalable, and was a strong motivation for Jimmy Wales, the founder of Nupedia to open up the authoring model by starting the Wikipedia project. After 3.5 years, Nupedia had only completed 24 Articles, with 74 more articles as work in progress. Nupedia was not an open wiki like Wikipedia and adopted an extensive process of peer review before final publication of an article. Wikipedia was preceded by the Nupedia project, which also aimed to build a free content encyclopedia. When comparing closed versus open authoring approaches, it is worth looking at the history of Wikipedia, which has succeeded in creating the largest encyclopedia in history. The Wall Street Journal Online has an interesting debate between Jimbo Wales of Wikipedia and Dale Hoiberg, editor in chief of Encyclopaedia Britannica, and you may find this to be an interesting read as well. Can both open and closed authoring models produce high quality material? To find out more, consider the Wikipedia article on the reliability of articles. In your opinion, do you expect to find significant differences in the quality of content when comparing open and closed authoring approaches? Given the recentness of the wiki phenomenon, research on this question is limited. Reading There is divided opinion and a healthy debate among educators concerning the quality of content developed in a wiki environment. The usual guidelines for healthy computer use applyīefore proceeding with the discussion activity for this tutorial, you should read the following short article.As a wiki grows, the community plans and administers the structure collaboratively. The flexibility of a wiki's structure can mean that information becomes disorganised.Requires Internet connectivity to collaborate, but technologies to produce print versions of articles are improving.There are easy ways to restore a page however, and on WikiEducator you must be logged in to edit pages so this reduces vandalism by automated spam bots. Open to SPAM and Vandalism if not managed properly.However it is possible to regulate user access. Anyone can edit so this may be too open for some applications, for example confidential documentation.there are a wide range of open source software wiki's to choose from so licensing costs shouldn't be a barrier to installing an institutional wikiĪdvantages in one context, may be disadvantages in another.the wiki has no predetermined structure - consequently it is a flexible tool which can be used for a wide range of applications.widens access to the power of web publishing to non-technical users.the wiki software keeps track of every edit made and it's a simple process to revert back to a previous version of an article.people located in different parts of the world can work on the same document.Wikis are instantaneous so there is no need to wait for a publisher to create a new edition or update information.
0 kommentar(er)
