33 Wikis: #3 -- This Might Be a Wiki

This is the third installment in "33 Wikis," a close look at best practices in wiki-based collaboration.  Each day -- for 33 days -- we look at one wiki and briefly describe what the wiki is for, why we like it, and what we can all learn from it.  If you want to nominate a wiki, please let us know.  On day 34 we will post a public wiki featuring info on all nominees.

What this wiki is for:  "This Might Be a Wiki"  -- a collaborative Web site for the rock band, They Might Be Giants -- might be the best fan site ever.  In fact, that's how we rewrote the tagline for this wonderful site, which anyone can edit (after all, this is a wiki).  The creators of the wiki, Scott Redd and Brad Will, have provided a place where fans from all over the world can share info, upload files, post guitar lines, publish show dates, and intrepret the complex, inventive lyrics that have won over so many fans since the 1980's.

Why we like it:   as the wiki creators note, "there are a zillion TMBG web sites on the internet, but we're pretty sure this is the only one that you (yes, you) can edit."  "This Might Be a Wiki" demonstrates that a wiki might in fact be the best platform for a fan site, whose readers are motivated to provide updates on the most minute levels of detail.  "This Might Be a Wiki" is also innovative on the technical side.  Check out ThisMightBeABot (left), a tool for automating various "tedious tasks" such as site navigation, categorization, and archiving.

What we can all learn from it:   This is "wisdom of crowds," pure and simple -- a super-motivated community that works hard to make the wiki complete and -- just as important -- to make it correct.  A great example of this is the revision history for TMBG co-founder John Sidney Linnell's bio -- dozens of edits from multiple authors, working together to get things right.  We can think of several types of communities that can learn from this experiment.  [Think, for example, of wiki communities for Democratic or Republican nominees -- party fans and faithfuls can collect and vet all sorts of information.]  But for now, this site should light a fire in the general marketing community.  I can think of no better way of connecting with customers than to let them in, let them participate in the great information machine, and let them make their own birdhouse in their soul.

Comments

[nathew]

a problem with your democrat/republican wiki idea is the inevitable vandalism from both sides.

[Giovanni Rodriguez]

True, but it all depends on (1) the purpose of the wiki, (2)the tasks identified for collaboration, and (3) criteria, if any, for membership. Not all good wikis are public, e.g.

Like all wikis, it's garbage. The (l)users who spend the most time at the site, or who carry over preexisting social network status from extrasite venues, end up directing things as happens in every wiki.

It's more about agreeing with and supporting friends than it is hashing out accurate articles. The very example cited in the above glowing review, John Linnell's bio, is chock-full of bizarre censorship from self-appointed, self-righteous guardians.

As with any wiki, if you aren't personally willing to sacrifice a significant amount of time and energy -- perpetually -- don't expect any changes you make, especially controversial ones, to last longer than a microsecond.

Wikis aren't democratic. The comparison to Republicans and Democrats is totally off-base. Wikidom is oligarchic, and the oligarchy is determined by specific meritocracy (relative to time spent editing the wiki, not accuracy or detail of information provided).

I give TMBW two thumbs down.

[Marshall Kirkpatrick]

Interesting last response there! I love wikis, but have to say that those points need to be responded to.

Also, your reference to Wisdom of Crowds, btw, doesn't jive with the summary of the book's author's talk at SXSW a friend gave me: that there are 3 preconditions essential to the wisdom of crowds working a. there has to be a factually correct answer b. people have to be able to come up with their estimation independently. I don't remember what the third one is, but I'd say that the first two aren't met by wikis and thus that it's not the best metaphor to use.

I love this series, though, and will tell everyone I know about it. Yay!

[Marshall Kirkpatrick]

You know what, I went and looked it up and I stand in part corrected:

Under what circumstances is the crowd smarter?

There are four key qualities that make a crowd smart. It needs to be diverse, so that people are bringing different pieces of information to the table. It needs to be decentralized, so that no one at the top is dictating the crowd's answer. It needs a way of summarizing people's opinions into one collective verdict. And the people in the crowd need to be independent, so that they pay attention mostly to their own information, and not worrying about what everyone around them thinks.

[Giovanni Rodriguez]

Marshall -- thanks.

Actually James Surowiecki (author of "Wisdom of Crowds") talks about many different types of group collaboration. Yes, there are conditions that need to be met, and I believe a wiki can be one of many useful tools ... depending on purpose of the project. After this series is over, I am going to do a more general analysis of what we're observing -- what's working, what is not, etc. "33 Wikis" can't cover everything that needs to be covered, but I'm hoping we get enough people thinking about this to generate some original thinking. We first need to gather the specimens.

[Jon]

"The very example cited in the above glowing review, John Linnell's bio, is chock-full of bizarre censorship from self-appointed, self-righteous guardians."

Unless you're referring to the vandalism of spam-bots being reverted, I don't see any censorship, bizzare or not. Care to elaborate, anonymous poster?

[Frank]

Hello ! This is very [url=http://www.google.com/bb497]good[/url] site !!