There, there, SharePoint - you're not the only one whose intent doesn't match its use: look at wikipedia

Ah, Wikipedia. Without you, I would never have known that new Doctor Who Executive producer Steven Moffat also created Press Gang (which surely should make him eligible for a Nobel Prize of some sort). Or that the Large Hadron Collider could very well produce a black hole, but one that is unlikely to be a problem beyond the natural life-span of the planet anyway. Or how many Roma people may or may not have died as part of the Nazi Final Solution. Of course, I still might not know these things, but just think I know them.

I was recently in a "discussion" (I made an assertion, I got a reply, and since the replier was someone who has to have the last word, I decided to make his first and his last the same - and he still needed to have the last word against himself!) about some of the pitfalls regarding Wikipedia. Most notably, the rules. The oh so, so, SO many rules. Why is that important? Because it’s a huge turn-off. Anyone who works in the community space probably knows that a great way to skew badly an online community is to bury them in a mountain of rules to follow. Of course, you don't have to enforce them consistently, and you can ignore them, except for when you can't. So, provide all that up front, and then remind everyone that anyone can participate, so that anyone who does is everyone. Now, can anyone point to an occasion where that approach has been a success.

So why does Wikipedia need all these rules? Well, because it’s an encyclopaedia. Except it isn't. Well, I say it isn't, but it is. Well I say it is, but it isn't. Well,...

I don't do a lot of editing on Wikipedia. I see many "facts", a lot of "original research", a lot of "non-NPOV", and I let it all go (just about). Why? Why not? There's a small, mean part of me (I call him Bernard) that says that anyone foolish enough to believe what Wikipedia says at any one time deserves what they get. Its a snobby, elitist, "I'm a librarian and you're an idiot" part of me that I can't get rid of, and probably don't want to. Why? Because, as long as I hold that attitude, I (hopefully) won't accept what's written as fact without thinking about it.

The thing is, I love Wikipedia. I use it EVERY day, for any number of reasons and purposes. Much of it work related (I'd say half the time, because it'd be close, but that scares me). But my favourite thing is TV episode capsules. Family Guy, Dollhouse, Australia’s Next Top Model (Leigh Sales says its OK to watch, thank goodness), you name it. I have this addiction to consult Wikipedia about an episode as I watch it, like an asynchronous commentary track. It really is an addiction, too. I keep telling myself "just wait til the episode is over", never do, because then the next show starts, and I have to look it up before I forget.

How can I use something religiously that I hold in such contempt? Well, possibly I rationalise it by saying that I only believe Wikipedia fully when it ins't something important. I remember one time I did try to do something significant. I couldn't tell you why this one wrong entry set me off, other than the fact that I was in between jobs and wanted to do something useful. I ended up in revert war with a lawyer who was convinced that I was wrong. I had to agree he had the legal expertise to say that, except, I wasn't, because the government authority responsible for the process I was editing - think about the most important democratic process in Australia - said I was right. I quoted directly from their publication, and it was reverted. I quoted directly from their publication and added a passage about the implication, and it was reverted. Some kind soul eventually took pity on me and made an edit to say what I had been trying to say, but make it sound like the opposite was true in a special case - which as far as I know has occurred once ever, and only because the law was changed to make it happen. I would now say that the page is technically correct, but presented in such a way as to give readers the wrong impression if they aren't well versed in the Australian version of that process. Oh well, the stupid people can believe what they like.

Now, this post rambles a lot, which is important. Because that's what Wikipedia is like: a long, rambling, partially coherent conversation. It’s not authoritative, because it’s ephemeral, with a few exceptions. It’s useful, but only as an addition to well-informed research. It’s a noble idea, but its goals are incompatible with its nature. It’s not evil, but only because it’s not good either. I'm not saying don't support it, or don't use it. Just use it with caution. Know what wikipedia is, and what it isn't, and use it accordingly.

Sharepoint: The wiki that isn't

Earlier this week, I tweeted that I figured out what bugged me about the wiki in sharepoint: its not a wiki. This brought me a few (quite polite) please explains from the sharepoint community. I quickly highlighted a couple, but since 160 characters isn't really enough for detailed feedback, I thought I'd write a few of the observations down.


1. Creating a new page

Seriously, how hard is it in SP? Every other wiki I've used has a button, command, or other method to create a new page straight off the bat. Not so here. The simplest method - forward linking - is mentioned but not explained on the opening page - you have to follow to the "How to use this wiki" page to find out what this is. Even then, to use this method, you have to edit one of the initial help pages to add a forward link to it. Most first time users (myself included) would hesitate to edit the help pages as the first activity in a new wiki. What if you screw up and delete the help? So thumbs down here.

The other method - the one I would say is the most needed - would be to click on the button/link/widget that says "New page" or "New" or some variation therein. That was my first action - or at least my first attempt at action. because, I couldn't find the new button anywhere - and felt pretty stupid in the process. It turned out I wasn't so stupid, the option to create a blank page from scratch doesn't exist when you enter the wiki. You've got to go to a list view of pages within the wiki - and you've got to know how to get to this view, because there's no magic label that says "List all pages in the wiki and create new ones". Instead, that option is listed under the somewhat obscure title "View all site content". If you're not familiar with the idea that your sharepoint wiki is a seperate (sub)site - and I wasn't - then it wouldn't occur to you that this is your magic button.

Now its perfectly reasonable to argue that this would be addressed in training users on how to use sharepoint, and quite true. But if you want to launch a new wiki to new users geographically dispersed in a hurry (which wikis more often than not are), then this isn't really helpful.

No other wiki I've ever used makes it so hard to get started, and certainly I'm not aware of any other wiki that requires user training for everyone before using it. I'm trying to offer the wiki as a sandbox for new users, but it comes across more as 5000 piece airplane model kit - you have to know quite a bit before you can even start. Or you could just use any other wiki on the market.

So, big fail there.


2. Formatting

Another big feature of most other wikis is the ability to apply heading formats consistently and easily. Most of the wikis I've used, for example, let you create a level 1 heading by preceding it with an exclamation mark. 2 exclamations marks is a level 2 heading. Not only doesn't sharepoint recognise this, but it doesn't provide headings at all! You can either:

1. Apply ordinary formatting (bold, increase font size, etc.)
2. Edit the HTML and use heading tags

Option 1 provides no consistency, which for a community edited resource is pretty poor - things are going to look ugly and inconsistent pretty quickly. Option 2 just looks ugly when I've tried it, and I think editing the HTML source is probably a bad idea for casual or novice users, and probably anyone else.

So the inability to provide a consistent look and feel for headings is another fail.

Now, there are a number of other flaws, but they're less to do with SharePoint's wiki in comparison to others, and more to do with its wiki implementation in general - such as the way tables are rendered at creation, and not being able to insert an image from your SP library - so I won't cover those off (yet).