Don’t get me wrong, I like a good wiki as much as the next fella, but can we please get over sentiments like these:
“A wiki is a group blog that can be edited by its readers… Wikis are more like conversations”
I’d love to be at the wikisym, I get entirely what Socialtext and ProjectForum are doing and, well, there’s some great stuff going down, but please, please, please can people stop talking about conversations and wikis. Ward knows. I think we should catch on too!
And in that vein, ahem, might I propose that if you’re going to ASCILITE 2005 you consider my workshop: High Fidelity Collaboration – WhyWikisWork & WhyWikisWorkNot :o)
So if Wiki’s aint the conversation, where are these conversations happening(if at all)? For sure it aint blogs…..says he starting a converstation with James/whoever…
They’re happening everywhere, aren’t they… I mean I’m no expert on what these platforms provide but aren’t they (and what’s that one you’re using?) essentially evolving into blog/IM/wiki/email esque environments?
You’ve never told me, actually nobody has (is this polite rejection ;), if you think this kinda thing might work http://incsub.org/blogtalk/?page_id=54
..er exactly. So wiki’s ARE making conversations happen…which is counter what your post is saying or did I foolishly miss your point?
naw, wikis aren’t, wikis are just editable repositories!
Tools are tools, its how they are used that counts. Conversations can happen on wikis, blogs, discussion boards, mailing lists, street corners, parliaments, and more. People can also use all these tools to just shout at each other and ignore what others are saying, which I think happens far more often than not.
The reason people often think of wikis as more conversational is because the idea is that everyone works together on a single, communal product, which means they have to actually engage each other, as opposed to everyone off doing their own thing. The reality doesn’t always match up with the theory.
To repeat, it’s people, not tools.
I don’t think you’re right there Mark.
If you plan a new town badly, people won’t live there successfully. If you try to spread constructivist pedagogies in an institution that only has lecture theatres, that won’t work. If you set up a new office that puts everyone in individual, cordoned off offices, they probably won’t talk to each other much and if you try to have a conversation using a wiki odds are you’re barking up the wrong tree too.
Yes, fundamentally it’s down to the task, the people and the culture, but the *environment* is absolutely critical… without an effective environment – read, in an online context ‘tools’ – you’re going to be banging nails with a saw.
You will get some successes, some people, tasks and motivation will kick off, communicate and develop communities regardless of the tool or the environment, it happens all the time, but they are the exception, they have such a powerful purpose that they would (and have) talked through any medium that’s available.
But for the rest of us, for the ‘real world’, tools and environments are critical.
To say otherwise is to ignore the importance of architecture, town planning, industrial design etc. etc. etc.
Completely ignoring the fact that if people have an actual need for something they’ll find a way to make it work… however. I just want to check if you’re suggesting that blogs encourage conversations?
I suppose it’s like desire lines, what you need is an environment that works like a patch of grass between buildings.. give it a year and people will have demonstrated to you exactly where you need to put the paths. Same with that ‘making it work’ thing, but if you make that patch of grass a flowerbed, or a hill or pre-paved then that’s going to have an impact, but I digress ;)
(and I don’t think a wiki is necessarily that patch of grass, even though it sounds disarmingly like it)
Am not really sure what you’re saying, people will make anything work that they need to… stones become cutting implements but I’d rather have a knife, I can stand outside and have a smoke but I’d rather sit under a nice tree, I can drive to Geelong but I’d rather get the train.
Blogs develop online personal presence & allow for centred (as opposed to centralised) communication which leads to better conversations in a whole range of contexts, one of them being through blogs and most of them being through other ‘centred’ (on the individual) tools like IM or email.
A wiki is a shared space, a blog (effectively used) is an individual space. Face to face we bring our individual spaces with us, in ourselves, online we can’t really do that or sustain a conversation which doesn’t connect to ourselves as individuals.
So yes, I guess I am.
Great, a blog “effectively used” can allow for a good conversation. Now plug in anything for the word “blog” in that sentence, including discussion board, forum, wiki, mailing list, etc.
“We bring our individual spaces with us” … fine, lovely academic sounding verbiage about what’s needed to have a conversation, but just one piece of the puzzle. How about “listening to others”? Sure, when effectively used, blog posts listen and carefully respond to others. But because it can easily be solely an individual viewpoint, why do I need to consider what other people have said? Or why don’t I pick one word in their post and just rip into it, without really trying to listen and engage? And evidence that that happens is all around us daily (though not in these enlightened virtual hallways of course! :-))
But that’s a bad use of the tools – any tools – if your goal is to promote conversation. (Anyway, this is one conversation I’m probably stepping out of for the time being)
Awwww… was just starting to enjoy that!
Yes there is a lot of verbiage in what I’m saying and yes I’m being way too cautious / balanced in what I’m saying but it’s hard not too sometimes…. will retire myself too though and think up a better way of putting the above.
Happy now Nodnil?