Basically, my point (which, I think, you have now understood, so I am stating it explicitly for the public benefit) is this:
The problems you outline are not downsides of wikis, the technology—they are downsides of Wikipedia, the project (and some, but not all, other wikis that are run in a similar manner). In fact wikis, the technology, are not uniquely bad, but uniquely good at solving these problems (since they so easily enable the creation of arbitrarily many different views on any given set of information-chunks, or any subset thereof)!
While they may make it easy to create different views of information chunks, what’s the benefit of such pages if no other users can find them? Having an official, well put together* page hierarchy which starts at the homepage and includes all pages is pretty valuable.
*If the organization system doesn’t “cleave reality at the joints” then it’s probably not doing it’s job.
While they may make it easy to create different views of information chunks, what’s the benefit of such pages if no other users can find them? Having an official, well put together* page hierarchy which starts at the homepage and includes all pages is pretty valuable.
I concur, but again, this is not a problem with wiki technology any more than it would be a problem with book technology if I were to publish a textbook without a table of contents or an index.
An analogy: suppose I say that a knife is uniquely good at cutting things (compared to other tools like hammers, chisels, etc.), and you protest that you have only ever seen knives used to smash things, whereas it’s hammers that you’ve seen used to cut things (with the claw side of a claw hammer, say). That would hardly be a sensible reply, yes? It’s simply that you’re not using knives (or seeing them used) correctly!
In short, you’re saying that if the power of a tool isn’t actually used, then it doesn’t do any good. I agree entirely! The answer is to go ahead and use it, not to discard the tool; knives, books, and wikis are, in fact, quite powerful, even if some foolish people use them to smash things, publish ones without indexes, or fail to create publicly visible index pages.
We ought to learn from the folly of others—not be discouraged by it.
We ought to learn from the folly of others—not be discouraged by it.
I agree.
I would note that while past examples of failure are something to improve upon, function should determine form, and past examples where form determined functionality to it’s detriment are important. While TVTropes may be fun to read, because I value LessWrong, and the ability to read LW, among other ways, via time, so I can read the latest posts (like how this site is going to change with the addition of new features), I don’t want LW to become exactly like the TVTropes wiki.
For some explicit examples:
If someone wrote a book without indentations or paragraphs, or ends to sentences it would be hard to read.
Likewise, a book with the binding broken and the pages out of order would be hard to read, but fairly simple to put in the right order—if there were page numbers. If there weren’t page numbers, and some pages were missing, it’d be hard.
An example of a problem, and a possible solution:
A) Suppose someone writes a new wiki page (on Batman (Franchise)). Then (maybe) they remember to add it to to Comics or Fiction.
(If new wiki pages show up on the frontpage, and are by default tagged “not categorized yet” (and categorized if the author categorized them) then maybe someone else can see that it needs to get slotted into the appropriate list and fixes it. This way of operating might work—unless there’s too many new articles all at once and the “categorization checkers” are flooded, and end up backlogged.)
B) Someone goes to the Fiction page (which is a list of pages) and adds a link to a “Batman (Franchise)” page (which turns red because it hasn’t been made yet). And then they go to the Batman page and write the article.
TL:DR; (Main point)
My point is that if organization is something that maybe happens after content creation as an afterthought there will be unorganized pages. But if organization work goes in beforehand then there aren’t unorganized pages. Yes sometimes things change as they’re worked out, and the pre-organization needs revision. But pre-organization is better than no organization.
Basically, my point (which, I think, you have now understood, so I am stating it explicitly for the public benefit) is this:
The problems you outline are not downsides of wikis, the technology—they are downsides of Wikipedia, the project (and some, but not all, other wikis that are run in a similar manner). In fact wikis, the technology, are not uniquely bad, but uniquely good at solving these problems (since they so easily enable the creation of arbitrarily many different views on any given set of information-chunks, or any subset thereof)!
While they may make it easy to create different views of information chunks, what’s the benefit of such pages if no other users can find them? Having an official, well put together* page hierarchy which starts at the homepage and includes all pages is pretty valuable.
*If the organization system doesn’t “cleave reality at the joints” then it’s probably not doing it’s job.
I concur, but again, this is not a problem with wiki technology any more than it would be a problem with book technology if I were to publish a textbook without a table of contents or an index.
An analogy: suppose I say that a knife is uniquely good at cutting things (compared to other tools like hammers, chisels, etc.), and you protest that you have only ever seen knives used to smash things, whereas it’s hammers that you’ve seen used to cut things (with the claw side of a claw hammer, say). That would hardly be a sensible reply, yes? It’s simply that you’re not using knives (or seeing them used) correctly!
In short, you’re saying that if the power of a tool isn’t actually used, then it doesn’t do any good. I agree entirely! The answer is to go ahead and use it, not to discard the tool; knives, books, and wikis are, in fact, quite powerful, even if some foolish people use them to smash things, publish ones without indexes, or fail to create publicly visible index pages.
We ought to learn from the folly of others—not be discouraged by it.
I agree.
I would note that while past examples of failure are something to improve upon, function should determine form, and past examples where form determined functionality to it’s detriment are important. While TVTropes may be fun to read, because I value LessWrong, and the ability to read LW, among other ways, via time, so I can read the latest posts (like how this site is going to change with the addition of new features), I don’t want LW to become exactly like the TVTropes wiki.
For some explicit examples:
If someone wrote a book without indentations or paragraphs, or ends to sentences it would be hard to read.
Likewise, a book with the binding broken and the pages out of order would be hard to read, but fairly simple to put in the right order—if there were page numbers. If there weren’t page numbers, and some pages were missing, it’d be hard.
An example of a problem, and a possible solution:
A) Suppose someone writes a new wiki page (on Batman (Franchise)). Then (maybe) they remember to add it to to Comics or Fiction.
(If new wiki pages show up on the frontpage, and are by default tagged “not categorized yet” (and categorized if the author categorized them) then maybe someone else can see that it needs to get slotted into the appropriate list and fixes it. This way of operating might work—unless there’s too many new articles all at once and the “categorization checkers” are flooded, and end up backlogged.)
B) Someone goes to the Fiction page (which is a list of pages) and adds a link to a “Batman (Franchise)” page (which turns red because it hasn’t been made yet). And then they go to the Batman page and write the article.
TL:DR; (Main point)
My point is that if organization is something that maybe happens after content creation as an afterthought there will be unorganized pages. But if organization work goes in beforehand then there aren’t unorganized pages. Yes sometimes things change as they’re worked out, and the pre-organization needs revision. But pre-organization is better than no organization.