Wiki for gathering a list, and the need for comments and notifications
Request
I was sent an email today along with 5 other people.
The email read something like, “Can everyone please email me a list of issues with [our system] and then [this person] will go through all the emails make a list in a document.”
This just screamed wiki to me.
This was an In-the-Flow collaborative process that could put email to shame.
I emailed Reply-to-All with a request to use a wiki, a good idea I thought, especially since we are piloting wikis.
I got the go ahead to create a wiki…”but hurry because we need this quick.”
Right on, a wiki is hawaiian for “quick” (a private laugh with myself at the time)
I created a wiki
I listed all my issues on the wiki index page.
Then I published a wikipage for each issue.
I had to go to a meeting so I left a note on the wiki index page that I would be back at 2.30pm.
When I got back I noticed some others had made contributions.
Someone made a contribution by Reply-to-All to the initial email.
They said that my contributions to the wiki covered what they would of contributed, but they also wanted to ask a question and also add one item to the list…so they sent an email instead of contributing to the wiki
I took the essence of it and put it on the wiki on their behalf…we need to discipline people out of old habits.
At this point I’m feeling that the lack of a comments module on the wiki is making our collaboration only half successful, as whatever the object is; a document, a wiki, you need to converse about this object, and you want this inhouse next to the object.
When I was finished, I left a note at the end of the index page
“John - I have finished all my contributions”
Later on I remembered another issue, so I whacked it in.
Then I discovered another issue and added it.
I decided to look at recent changes and noticed someone left a comment within a wikipage I created
(our wiki doesn’t have comments, instead at the end of a wikipage we are creating a line and under that line we can write comments/notes)
Later on I was with a colleague and noticed they were emailing the person in charge about a wikipage, ie. they were leaving a comment.
I suggested they still put it in the wiki in our workaround comments thread, and also email the person that way you are pinging that person, and other users of the wiki can visit and notice your contributions.
Again, I’m finding comments 50% of what makes a wiki work.
What we feel we really need
Comments
-The wiki use case was creating a communal list, so scratching a linear comment thread at the end of each actual wikipage was OK, but if the wikipage was something more presentable like a communal glossary then we don’t really want comments scratchings on the actual page, we’d rather a comments module.
Notifications
-If we do scratch a comment on an actual wikipage, we want to be notified by email (or RSS)
- and what about subscribing to the page itself it see if anyone has made changes to a page (you can go to the recent changes page, but having this as a delivered notification digest would be good)
eg. Wikispaces
Notifications for whole wiki
- Edits and Discussions
- Edits Only
- Discussions Only
Notifications for a wikipage
- Page Edits
- Page Discussion
What I liked about using wikis
It was never too late to add issues.
If I emailed my contributions, I would of had to email another two times for my two extra contributions.
I also didn’t have to email that I was in a meeting and I would resume my contributions at a later time.
And again I didn’t need to email that I was finished.
The person who left a comment/note on the wikipage I created didn’t have to email me, as he wrote it in the wiki.
I also discovered issues others contributed.
Which I would have not seen if we did not use a wiki, as they would have emailed it to the person in charge.
Yeah, no crap emails!
I just visit the wiki to see the progress and conversations.
In the ideal wiki I’d also be able to be notified of new edits and comments.
No need for the person in charge to spend time compiling all the emails, deleting the duplicates, and cutting ‘n pasting a list into a document.
The wiki is used for the process and is also the finished product, you can even export to another file type.
Yeah for wikis!
Yeah for no unnecessary emails!
Yeah for collaboration!
Yeah for visibility!
Yeah for conversations!
Yeah for notifications!
Yeah for a central home!
Yeah for transparency!
Yeah for simplicity!
Yeah for a ready-made end product!
Yeah for wikis!
UPDATE: I just realised I experienced the classic CommonCraft Wikis in Plain English
![email.png](http://services.nexodyne.com/email/icon/GxbiQvgbwBgCnw%3D%3D/oIp%2BJMQ%3D/R01haWw%3D/0/image.png"){kind=icon}
I have not used any commercial wiki apps, but have researched a few like Confluence that might have more of the features you’re looking for. If you are in a good-sized organization you might try something like that.
Comment by klecu — October 27, 2008 @ 9:46 pm
There’s a lot to be said for Wikis. They’re a great platform for hashing ideas and brainstorming.
In fact, I remember reading about Lawrence Lessig “wikifying” his new project before going on vacation, so the community can help develop it. That was the first time I saw it used as a verb.
In the enterprise, it’s also important to see the chronological/process-based aspects of collaboration. It’s why BPM is such a big thing these days.
Wikis fill a need for a non-structured format — you can do anything you like with them — but the whole field of “Human Process Management” is still in its infancy. In many businesses it’s hard to train people to use “new-fangled” tools like these, as you witnessed yourself with people who “reply-to-all”.
Yeah for progess!
Comment by Jonathan Barel — October 28, 2008 @ 10:22 am
Nice Comment Jonathan,
I like your point about “process-based aspects of collaboration”, it brings up a new area of a self-made structured way to do knowledge work…assemble your own workflow.
That is, the tools (wiki, blog) are unstructured which is good, but how do we assemble them into a work flow. How do I join (not necessarily mashup) web 2.0 tools into a flow eg. make your own “basecamp”, the way you can make your own “ning”.
How do I make my own task management system, there are heaps of existing ones with web 2.0 tools, which is great, but I also want to glue my own together, assemble the flow of how you move from one part of the task to the next.
I guess this is possible in the wikis these days that are more like CMS’s, as we have themed wikipages. Each wikipage could be structured to be a part in the process.
In addition to this it would be good to wikify and blogify tools that are not blogs or wikis. I believe an “edit this” button can be a feature without having to be a wiki, or be able to “blog this” piece of information.
This way we are incorporating what is actually “practiced” right from the “process” tools. Rather than having to remember to go and write a blog post afterwards, or make sure you add something to the wiki after the fact, we often forget or move on to our next task, so to do it at the time you are doing your task is more effective.
http://libraryclips.blogsome.com/2008/09/26/the-ubiquity-of-social-tools-in-context-of-workflows/
http://libraryclips.blogsome.com/2008/10/16/taskonomy-assembling-for-use/
Comment by John Tropea — October 29, 2008 @ 10:42 pm