Wiki Patterns
grow your wiki
EditWikiphobia
What is it ?
Some people don't understand or don't like the idea of wikis. They will sabotage any effort to even start a wiki project. Typically this happens in organizations where there are no wikis set up. Arguments against wikis range from "why not use emails instead?" to "there's already a document repository on the server", "but I'm the owner of this information, and I will lose the ownership", or "vandals will be able to screw up the wiki."
How do I notice it?
There's resistance at either management or IT level. Typically this happens in document-oriented organizations where ownership is sacred. Many Wikiphobic people will print their emails and documents as they fear that these may get deleted, so the idea of online collaboration is completely out of the question.
How do I fix it?
Wikiphobic people typically are ignorant. Just create the wiki on a server and don't tell them it's a wiki. Tell them it's an informational web site and only trusted editors can modify it. Then add everybody as an editor except the Wikiphobic people. They'll think that the site is static and can't be modified, which will suit them very well. You will pass as the owner of the contents, and thus they will ask you to modify the site via emails. Just cut and paste the emails into the wiki. By the time they figure out it's a wiki, your wiki will likely be very large and they won't have the guts to delete all that information. They may ask you to disable editing. Answer "yes, I'll do it" but then just ignore the order. Repeat as necessary, typically every six months.
| Rate this pattern? |
|
Related Patterns
- Vandal - Wikiphobic people are afraid of vandals.
Further Reading
Adoption Patterns
Adoption Anti-Patterns
Wikipatterns.com is sponsored by Atlassian Software, creators of JIRA, Confluence, Bamboo and Crowd
Designed by Headshift Ltd
I like this article I think that it is an important point to make and an important problem with the acceptability of any form of collaborative software however the fix is completely inappropriate.
I don't know what kind of organisation you were working in. However I can garentee that any actions where management has disapproved of something and then it was created in 'secret' would have massive repercussions, if anyone else has encountered acceptability problems and has a better fix then just implementing the project in secret I would really appreciate to know how you fixed it.
Nick,
Based on some of my experience working with organizations on wiki adoption, I have a feeling the spirit of this pattern is more about de-emphasizing the word wiki, rather than acting in total secrecy. I think the pattern page needs to change to reflect this. What do you think?
Stewart
Founder, Wikipatterns.com
Blog on Wiki Patterns
I'm not sure. You are correct that de-emphasizing the word makes people more comfortable but does this drive them away from editing incorrect articles because it isn't a wiki?
People know what the word means but a word is often taken out of context and a lot of people are pessamistic about internet users. When in reality there is a good deal of moderation in public wiki's (I know today I've correct several repeated words/sentences and punctuation) and in a private wiki it is just that, private.
I think that sometimes people need to be made comfortable with the idea of a wiki. For this to happen they must understand the importance that while people can change the wiki negatively, there is often a revert option to restore the former glory of the article. However I do realise that this is another pattern in this wiki.
One thing is for sure, by definition Wikiphobic people cannot be convinced that wikis are good, so don't waste too much time and energy convincing them. Those afraid of spiders will never like them, so there's no point in convincing arachnophobic people that spiders are nice.
The word "secretley" was removed. The existance of the site shouldn't be secret; it should be known all users. What I meant is that the site's nature can be left unspecified to the Wikiphobic people. Anyway in my experience Wikiphobic people won't even bother looking at the site so the result is the same.
I already have a lot of direct experience of managers, friends, family and even seasoned software developers being scared of with the whole notion of a wiki. The only real solution I have found is to indeed de-emphasize the word 'wiki'; whether people claim to understand the word or not, calling a wiki site a normal website has helped a lot in pushing that website forward.
So I go for dropping the word 'wiki' for everyone but the people maintaining or doing detailed updates to wiki sites.
Making people more trusting of any technology cannot be achieved by lying to them. This is poor business practice and self-defeating in any environment.
The word ignorant in the first sentence may be accurate, but I found it offensive. This site was located in an effort to locate information that can be used to build trust in collaborative online writing. I found nothing useful here.