The wiki way

Community
Anti-wiki
Conflict-driven view
False community
Wikiculture
Wikifaith
The Wiki process
Darwikinism
Power structure
Wikianarchism
Wikibureaucracy
Wikidemocratism
WikiDemocracy
Wikidespotism
Wikifederalism
Wikihierarchism
Wikimeritocracy
Wikimobocracy
Wikindividualism
Wikioligarchism
Wikiplutocracy
Wikirepublicanism
Wikiscepticism
Wikitechnocracy
Collaboration
Antifactionalism
Factionalism
Social
Exopedianism
Mesopedianism
Metapedianism
Overall content structure
Transclusionism
Antitransclusionism
Categorism
Structurism
Encyclopedia standards
Deletionism
Delusionism
Exclusionism
Inclusionism
Precisionism
Notability
Essentialism
Incrementalism
Article length
Mergism
Separatism
Measuring accuracy
Eventualism
Immediatism
Miscellaneous
Antiovertranswikism
Mediawikianism
Post-Deletionism
Transwikism
Wikidynamism
Wikisecessionism
Redirectionism

English (en) · français (fr) · +/−

The wiki way is to make bad edits easy to correct, rather than hard to make. It is the whole reason for creating a wiki in the first place, rather than a website (like most websites) where editing is only allowed by a handful of approved editors, and any changes desired by the larger public must be submitted as suggestions to, and then implemented by, those authorized editors. Such a system makes the process of getting desired changes made more cumbersome, and thereby makes members of the public less likely to bother with them.

For example, most users to a news website such as the New York Times who see a typo in an article are unlikely to go to the trouble of notifying the webmaster. That could require a number of steps such as finding the webmaster's email address, composing a message, etc. Who knows; perhaps many other users have already reported the same typo, and the extra effort involved in making another report is wasted. A wiki, on the other hand, allows users to simply hit an edit button and immediately make changes by themselves. In practice, this way has resulted in at least one high-quality product: Wikipedia.

One of the criticisms of FlaggedRevs and similar ideas is that they are contrary to the wiki way by making edits harder to make. Some of the same problems arise as on non-wiki websites. If changes do not go live until they are reviewed, then good edits must wait awhile before they can begin benefiting the public. One user writes:

Transparency and communicationEdit

The wiki way also requires transparency and communication. Users cannot correct bad actions unless they can see what those actions were and find out the reasoning behind them. Hence the wiki software makes it easy to review all actions, and every subject page has a talk page where changes can be discussed. Transparency is defeated when actions are discussed in private, as in many ArbCom cases. Communication is hindered when certain topics are declared off-limits to discussion.

Alternatives to the wiki wayEdit

Developer M.R.M. Parrott criticized Wikipedia and offered his own software, GetWiki, as an alternative to MediaWiki: "GetWiki is based on collaboration among trusted members, the way blogs are written. The deceptively open Wiki Way doesn't work." Parrott cites bullying, groupthink, invasions of privacy, inaccuracy, spam, and vandalism among the problems of wiki-websites directly addressed with GetWiki, a companion site to rimric.com. "I'm all about the content," he says, "instead of requiring thousands of eyeballs to police a disorganized maze of largely irrelevant pages, I focus GetWiki on quality. For years, the well-documented practices of big wiki-encyclopedias have not led to greater accuracy, public education, or content relevance. For example, as a philosopher, I have yet to read an accurate, well-written, astute Wikipedia article on any important subject."[1] Like Citizendium and other attempts to create a closed or semi-closed system, GetWiki didn't catch on.

ReferencesEdit

External linkEdit