At this point they seem to me to have limited usefulness in certain situations. Wikipedia is well-known and well-scrutinised, and works as a constantly updated source of general information for all and sundry, but smaller wikis are vulnerable to the on-line equivalent of vandalism, to which the only solution seems to be limiting accessibility. When you do that you are almost back to having a webmaster! Perhaps what works best is when you have an "intranet wiki" (dare I coin a new word and call it an "intrawiki"?) where the select group, such as SLV employees, can edit a wiki held within the main website, for the use of an internal group. This then allows procedures, news, policies, etc, to be updated by any member of the authorised group for the benefit of the rest of the group, without the risk of external interference.
A technological innovation which is still finding its place in the world.
1 comment:
Even external wikis can have access limits in force.
The pbwiki and slvdesk wiki are open to anyone to view, edit and vandalize.
But the RBDesk wiki (rbdesk.wiki.zoho.com) can only be viewed and edited by members of the Redmond Barry team.
My Australian companies research guide (auscompanies.wiki.zoho.com) can be viewed and commented upon by anyone, but edited by only me.
So "intrawikis" are possible without internal hosting. You could set one up for the A-team right now!
Post a Comment