Summary: bona fida advocacy pieces :)
> * Tell people about ''why'' they should use wiki.
> ** (Write pages for CategoryWhyWiki. See (*) note below.)
> [new:LionKimbro:2005-05-30 11:11 UTC]
> (*) CategoryWhyWiki is somewhat weak looking to me. What would be nice is bona-fida advocacy pieces in there.
> "Here's why wiki totally rocks."
> Right now, it's all: "Well, you know, there's this thing, it's called wiki, it can help, maybe. Did you know it's document based? How about that. We hope that wiki doesn't hurt you, or poke your eye out. Some people think it's worth it, you know? Wanna try? Eh?"
> I dunno. Something that people can look forwards to.
> We ''have'' ideas. We ''have'' these thoughts. No sense not putting them down.
The major points of WikiProliferation are:
An auxiliary point is:
Persuing any of these points aids persuit of the others.
The goal of "MassUseOfWiki" is to establish wiki, or wiki-like technology, as an Internet cultural norm.
The goal of "InterWiki" is to connect the wiki together.
All of these things proliferate wiki.
(The idea of building wiki ideas into other software is not self explanatory- I mean things like:
Not a major point, but worth noting.)
Some don't agree with WikiProliferation, and would rather LimitGrowth. WikiProliferation could mean a new SeptemberThatNeverEnded- too many new people, all at once, flooding the system. Wiki might defend themselves with HardSecurity, resulting in a backlash against wiki.
These are valid concerns; People who favor WikiProliferation work to address them by many strategies, including:
Q: Is WikiProliferation about turning all communications systems into wiki? No IRC, e-mail, IM, Scoop sites, blogs, bulletin boards- only wiki?
A: No. However, people interested in WikiProliferation think that wiki are far underutilized.
See also: WhatCommunicationSoftwareToUse.
Q: Is MassCoverageByWiki about covering everything that can by talked about by wiki?
A: No. There are many things that probably shouldn't be covered by wiki.
In particular, anything susceptable to a ChangeFailure should not be in a wiki. For these kinds of things, a message based medium (see DocumentsVsMessages) such as blogs should be used. Because, if you change your mind about something, you don't have to go correct yourself all over.
However, things that have staying power and are of interest to a lot of people should probably have a wiki associated with them.
I wrote the following text; I need to work it in some other way. Perhaps a seperate page: WhyWikiProliferation?, or something like that.
Q: Why focus on wiki?
That said, many people interested in WikiProliferation believe that wiki offers the greatest strategic advantage.
If WikiProliferation succeeds, ThePublicWeb will be such a useful place! Ideas will be chained together, and you'll be able to find the people who are interested in the same things as you with ease. If you see a page with a mis-spelling, you'll be able to fix it with ease. If you think a diagram would help in an explanation, you'll be able to add it yourself. If you're interested in tangential conversations, you'll be able to find popular places where people have them, and it'll be easy.
The web will turn into a place written by, organized by, and for people. Right now, it's more like a disorganized stack of papers and random memos isolated by key words. When you see web sites, you have little ability to interact with what is there.
While Bulletin Boards and Scoop sites and other communications technologies make it easier to mix with people, it is hard to coordinate and make content with these people. If you are searching for people, and people alone, that is okay. But if you're looking for people and well expressed ideas, wiki has a unique advantage. (WikiIsDocumentBased.)
Q: What about something that does documents better than wiki?
A: When we say "wiki" here, we mean an easy-to-use document based medium (WikiIsDocumentBased.) A new document-based technology, very much like wiki, would likely be embraced by WikiProliferation. (See also: WhyWikiWorks.)
"Go West, young man, Go West."
The Q&A at the end can be worked into the core text, I think.
(*) CategoryWhyWiki is somewhat weak looking to me. What would be nice is bona-fida advocacy pieces in there.
"Here's why wiki totally rocks."
Right now, it's all: "Well, you know, there's this thing, it's called wiki, it can help, maybe. Did you know it's document based? How about that. We hope that wiki doesn't hurt you, or poke your eye out. Some people think it's worth it, you know? Wanna try? Eh?"
I dunno. Something that people can look forwards to.
We have ideas. We have these thoughts. No sense not putting them down.