Blog Posts About: Technology in Plain English

Updated: We have created a short (3:52) video called "Wikis in Plain English " that you might enjoy.

 

You may have seen the word wiki used to describe a website used by a group to collaborate. My intent with this post is to describe wikis and the basics of how they work- in plain English.

The basics:

Ultimately, a wiki is a specific type of website. A wiki is special because it allows a group of people to build, edit and modify a website with no programming or HTML whatsoever. Because it doesn’t require technical expertise, all users of the wiki have equal ability to maintain and edit the site. Wikis are easy to learn and use, which makes them accessible to everyone.

A little background:

Wiki is short for wikiwikiWeb, first developed by Ward Cunningham in 1995. Wiki means quick in Hawaiian.

Wikis are different from normal web sites:

Normal web sites are usually developed offline and then presented to users as a finished product. By comparison, wikis are first presented to users as a blank slate- an empty page. A new wiki is an empty wiki, no pages, no links. Instead of a team of designers developing a web site in private, a wiki is developed in public by the users of the wiki over the life of the wiki.

So, if the wiki starts as a blank slate, where does the site's content come from?

The site's content comes from the users of the wiki. This is a defining element of wikis: the users are responsible for the direction and content of the wiki web site over time. Everyone that uses the wiki has the opportunity to contribute to it and/or edit in the way that they see fit. This allows a wiki to change constantly and morph to represent the needs of the users over time. Wikis grow to represent the community of users.

How does that happen- how does a user of a wiki contribute to or edit the wiki?

All wiki pages are equipped with a publicly available link that usually says Edit This Page or EditText. Whenever a user wants to update or change a page, they click the Edit This Page link, make their changes using plain text and then click Save to finalize the change. It is this editing ability that makes a wiki so efficient in collecting information -- users only need to edit a page to update the web site --no programming skill is required.

Whoa- so everyone can edit the page? That sounds like it would turn into a mess quickly.

Yes, everyone can edit every page. And, yes, wikis are vulnerable to attacks from spammers, flamers and disrupters. However, you would be surprised at how little this happens- and how little it affects the operations of the wiki.

Usually, wikis have dedicated users that keep up with each change that is made and they can clean up graffiti very quickly. Some say that the cost of defiling a wiki is greater than the cost of cleaning it, so it is not worth a spammer's time to do it.

OK, so it's updated by users and starts as a blank slate. If programming is not needed, how do you format the page? For instance, how do you make something bold? Or create headings?

It is true that programming is not needed. However, wikis often need to have formatting like headings, bold or italicized text, and links to other pages in the wiki.

These types of formatting changes are accomplished through using specific punctuation that is translated into formatting on the wiki web site. Each platform has its own version of the punctuation, but I've provided the punctuation used by SocialText for the examples below.

After clicking Edit This Page in a wiki, you would use the punctuation below to format the text.

• Putting asterisks around a word or phrase make them bold, like *This would be bold*
• Putting a carrot ^ before a word or phrase makes it a heading. ^^This would be a heading
• Complete listing of SocialText punctuation here

 

That makes sense- but how do users add new pages?

Similar punctuation makes it easy to make a new page. This means that a user can edit an existing page and add punctuation that makes a word or phrase into a link to a completely new page.

In SocialText, the punctuation is brackets. So, a user could edit a page, type [New Page Here] into the wiki, click Save and the existing wiki page would display a link to a new page called New Page Here. By clicking the new link, the user can get started editing the new page- adding a branch to the wiki's content.

With everyone making constant changes, how does a user keep up with the changes?

This brings us to another defining element of wikis- the ability to view the recent changes to the wiki. Most wikis have a link to view “Recent Changes. By clicking this link, a user can keep up with the changes occurring across the site. When I mentioned before that dedicated users clean up graffiti as soon as it occurs, they do so by monitoring every change that happens. In most systems, email and/or RSS is used to alert members of changes.

OK, wikis change constantly, everyone can edit, no programming required. Doesn’t someone have to be in charge for it to work?

Yes and no. Wikis work best when they are gardened. Usually, the people dedicated to the wiki (the community) will work to organize it over time. Not every user will consistently make changes effectively, so someone (or small group) often needs to be the gardener. The role of the gardener is to keep up the changes and make changes that ensure the wiki is organized and structured intuitively.

What are the limitations of wikis? Can a wiki become anything a user wants? Is it a full service resource?

I would say that a wiki is not a full service resource, nor is it meant to be. Below I've listed some things that I believe wikis are not appropriate for:

• Threaded Discussions: Without attribution or chronology, discussions don't fly. They're possible, but not easy.
• Weblogging: Again, no attribution or chronology
• Instant Messaging/Presence: In the platforms I've seen, there is no way to know when someone else is on the wiki or contact them directly via the wiki.

Why would I wiki?

This is an important point. Wikis are best used for a purpose- to serve a need. It is a tool and its value is related to how it used. That is the beauty of wikis, they are not predefined by any structure or requirements- a wiki is completely what you make it.

But, to make it valuable, it has to contribute to some goal or fulfill some need. I say that wikis are a great place for people to put stuff. As weblogs and online discussions occur, wikis can be a great place to stock the pertinent information that flows from other resources.

Other considerations:

As Peter Kaminski reminded recently, wikis can be a foundation for a type of online community. I had originally thought about them in terms of utility, but I am now seeing that a successful wiki is successful because of the community of users that use it and care for it. It is truly of the users, by the users.

For a description of a wiki in use: Wiki and the Perfect Camping Trip.

Other Wiki Resources:

Wikipedia
Portland Pattern Repository
MoinMoin
Meatball
List of Wiki Engines (via the C2 wiki)
SocialText

See Also: Other Technologies Described in Plain English:

• RSS
• Blogroll
• Trackback
  
• "Technology in Plain English" Category Archives

 

Bill Anderson at the new Praxis101 weblog pointed me to an article by James Fallows from the New York Times (purchase req) that asks a fundamental question about how we look at “knowledge�?.

The underlying intellectual question about knowledge management is whether people actually think of knowledge as a big heap of laundry just out of the dryer, or as neatly folded pajamas, shirts and so on, all placed in the proper drawers. The "big heap" theory lies behind some of the programs: we don't care where or how things are stored; we just want to find certain pairs of socks - or P.D.F. files - exactly when we need them. The "folded PJ's" theory guides a variety of programs that let you mark information as it shows up - for instance, tagging an article you know you want to refer to later, when shopping for a new car. Brains work both ways, and the ideal K.M. software will, too.

I saw this about a week ago and haven’t been able to get it out of my head- I like the laundry metaphor. The way I look at knowledge has changed recently regarding my email program. I have previously used folders to archive emails (neatly folded into a drawer).

Then I downloaded the Outlook plug-in LookOut, which allows me to search all my folders at once. Now, instead of looking through the “drawers�? for emails, I let LookOut go through the whole heap at once and give me a list of the best matches.

I like the “big heap�? way of looking at knowledge in most cases. I hate searching through folders looking for a messages/files that I may or may not have “tagged�? the right way originally. LookOut and the big heap save me time.

I’m considering having nasal surgery because I can’t breathe well through my left nostril. Yesterday, my doctor gave me a copy of an article that he said would help get a feel for the surgery and outcomes. The article might as well be in Latin. I get a lot of it, but it is filled with sentences these:

Terbinate Hypertrophy can be treated surgically with a wide variety of methods, commonly with partial resection of the bulbous anteroinferior portion of the terbinate. Terbinate procedures may be performed alone for terbinate hypertrophy or with septoplasty for patients with a combination of obstructing septal deformity and terbinate hypertrophy.

I’m sure he must give the article to most patients considering the surgery and I think he is guilty of not understanding his audience. I’d like to know if he thinks the article is useful to a majority of patients.

Whenever I see examples like these (and there are many) I’m reminded that simply communicating is not enough- to communicate effectively, the message has to be in the language of the audience. I’m always surprised at how often the mismatch occurs.

In the first section of this series, I provided an introduction to stocks and flows in online communication. In the second section, I applied these terms to weblogs, wikis and RSS.

In this final section of the series, I'm circling back to the basics of stocks and flows to help define the key points about each term in the context of more traditional websites.

Flow Basics:

The key point about flow and online communication is ongoing engagement. When a person engages in a flow, their attention is captured in small increments as communication flows by them over time. These short bursts of information can enable a person to manage a large number of communication resources at once. People have quickly learned to manage many forms of flow everyday on the phone, instant messenger, email, newsreader, etc. A real-world conversation is perhaps the essence of flow.

The question is: How does flow engage a web site visitor? What can individuals and companies do to create a web site with an engaging flow?

First, consider the appearance and functionality of most business web sites. The majority change little over time, with small updates occurring on a regular schedule. Many are online brochures with finely tuned marketing messages. When you visit these sites, do you look forward to your next visit? Do you expect to learn something new the next time you stop by? Do you feel a personal connection? The answer is likely no, because these sites do not flow, they do not engage readers.

Historically, flow was hard to achieve because it was difficult to update and manage a website. Flow was expensive. Now that websites have become much easier to update and manage for the non-technical, they are becoming more flow-enabled. Thanks to new tools and technologies, almost any website can become a flow for very little money.

Weblogs and discussion forums are two tools that can enable flow. Weblogs are useful in creating flows because they provide an ongoing resource for timely and pertinent commentary from an individual or small group. Online discussion forums enable flow by providing a resource that promotes ongoing conversation between visitors. In both of these cases, these tools allow the web site to move from being a static resource to a dynamic one, creating a flow of information that engages readers with each visit.

Another important point to consider regarding flows is notification. At the beginning of this section, I noted that people have learned to manage multiple flows at once as information flows to them. To maximize flows from your web site, consider using notification systems like RSS or email to give your readers the ability to be notified as your website changes. These notifications can be an essential tool for keeping readers engaged by making it easy for them to manage the flow in short and incremental pieces over time.

Stock Basics:

Stock represents that basic foundation of most web sites. A vast majority of sites are stock resources by default - they are static and archived for reference and accessibility. Stock, unlike flow, is not something that web site owners would implement- it is usually already there.

However, as we've seen in previous sections, I argue that it is the combination of stocks and flows that can maximize value. Considering stocks in terms of how they interact with flows reveals a new side of stocks. Combined with flows, we see stocks becoming a repository of large amounts of information created by flows. Stock is where the flows go to retire - they provide a historical record of a flow.

The question is: How can we ensure that flows are being stocked effectively? What makes a good stock?

Websites that flow will find that the management of stocks becomes very important over time. As the flows create new information, the stocks grow to become a rich, but often unwieldy resource. For this reason, website owners should pay particular attention to how stocks are being archived for reference. Easily accessible stocks compliment engaging flows.

Without stock, flows would disappear into the ether, never to be referenced again. Luckily, we have search engines, which are perhaps the most valuable tool for making online stocks accessible. Without search engines, the great stock of the web would be practically inaccessible. Google is an incredibly powerful resource for accessing stocks. As your stocks grow, consider using a search engine to help visitors access the stocks on your site.

Further, usable design, intuitive navigation, and the overall structure of your website can contribute greatly to the accessibility of your stocks. You might ask yourself: Are the stocks organized intuitively? Can visitors search the stocks productively? What are visitors looking for? Why aren't they finding it? Do the stocks have a shelflife? Should they expire and become inaccessible at some point?

While stocks will always be a part of the web, they will become larger and more difficult to manage as more websites flow.

Stocks and Flows in Other Forms:

As you're thinking about stocks and flows, note that the concept applies to many forms of media. As Jerry pointed out to me, television is a perfect example. TV is a flow; it is timely, engaging and people watch commercials because they are engaged in the programming flow. Now that TiVo and other DVRs are becoming popular, they are turning TV into a stock- something that is static and accessible at any time. The disruptive nature of TiVo is related to its ability to transform TV from being a flow to a stock. TV broadcasters cannot make money if TV becomes a stock, so the industry is fighting to keep TV a flow. This is just one example of how stocks and flows can be applied to a wide variety of resources.

Conclusion:

I hope that this series has provided you with a new lens through which you can describe and consider online communication tools and resources. More than anything, my intention was to introduce something new that we can share as a community. I hope that you will find productive uses of these terms now and in the future. In posting these entries, I also hope to start a discussion where others will provide their perspectives and challenge my assertions regarding these terms. Please feel free to use the comments on the entries, email me, or post on your own site.

I owe credit and many thanks to Jerry Michalski, who first introduced me to these terms and helped me form these thoughts. Thank you!

In the first section of this series, I provided a basic introduction to the terms "stock" and "flow" in the context of online communication. In this section, I'll apply these terms to technologies that are quickly becoming standards on the web: weblogs, wikis and RSS.

Weblogs and wikis have recently created considerable buzz in the online world. These tools have made it easy for individuals to publish their thoughts and words to the web, which is having a profound effect on the way we use websites. Similarly, RSS is shaping the way we keep up with constantly changing website content.

By looking at these technologies in terms of stocks and flows, we'll see examples how each tool differs in terms of purpose, value and usage.

Weblogs:

First let's look at weblogs, which I will argue are predominantly flow resources. Weblogs are websites that are easy to update and organized to display the most recent posts at the top of the page. Most weblogs are individually authored and used to provide timely and pertinent commentary on a regular basis. Being websites at heart, it would be easy to call weblogs a stock resource- the information (once posted) is basically static and archived for reference.

However, within the context of how most weblogs are used, it becomes apparent that they are more flow than stock. Timeliness is the key factor in this argument. Weblogs engage readers in a flow of communication where the value of the message is linked to its context. A weblog post is most pertinent and applicable at the time it is posted. Once a post is made to a weblog, the information has a shelf-life and often begins losing pertinence and value over time. For this reason, weblogs are best viewed as flows - a resource that is timely and engaging.

The flow of weblogs becomes even more apparent when you look at weblogs and webloggers as news sources. Do you read old newspapers? Do you like to watch yesterday's news programming? Not likely, because the news is most valuable when it is presented, when it is in a state of flow. Once the news has flowed, it becomes history. Weblogs are more valuable as a news source than a historical reference, so their value is linked to the flow of timely information they enable.

Could it be that the biggest difference between weblogs and traditional websites is that weblogs enable flow?

Weblogs and RSS:

We cannot mention the flow of weblogs without mentioning RSS. Thanks to RSS, a person can visit a web site and subscribe to an RSS feed, which ensures that they are notified the next time the website is updated. These notifications flow to the reader through a tool called an RSS reader, or newsreader.

RSS is important in the weblog world because it enables webloggers to keep up with many, many weblogs at once. In this way, RSS is the ultimate flow enabler. Using a news reader and RSS subscriptions, webloggers have the ability to engage in more flows than ever before, which helps news and information spread very quickly in the weblog world because everyone is engaging in the flow. RSS is jet fuel for flow.

While RSS became popular among webloggers, it is quickly becoming a standard for many other websites. By adding an RSS feed, traditional websites can move from being stock resources to flows- notifying readers as the site is updated. More on RSS here

Wikis:

Now, let's look at wikis, which I will argue are stock resources. A wiki is a web site that is used by a group to collaborate and accumulate related information. All users of a wiki have the ability to add new pages and information to the wiki. (see Wikipedia). The information in a wiki is not usually organized by time or author; it is organized according to the needs of the users, who may choose to organize the wiki similar to a traditional website.

A wiki is a stock because it is organized for reference, not timely engagement. The value of the wiki comes from its ability to archive and organize information, as opposed to engaging readers in a time-sensitive flow of information. You don't engage in a wiki, you reference it and therefore it is a stock.

Weblogs and Wikis Together:

As I mentioned in the first section of this series, using stocks and flows together can create synergy. I can see how this may be the case with weblogs and wikis.

The weblog community creates an amazing amount of information on a daily basis, information that is spread across thousands of weblogs, flowing between webloggers via RSS.

While most weblogs automatically archive (stock) weblog posts, it is challenging to archive and organize posts from multiple weblogs in an online location not organized by time or author.

As information flows through the weblog world, the need arises to stock this independently-produced information in an easy-to-organize format that can be shared by a group as an online reference resource. Wikis can fill this need.

Because wikis are very easy to update and organize, they can be a perfect tool for stocking the information produced by the weblog world. As weblogs flow, wikis can be used to pluck out pertinent information and organize it for easy reference. Wikis stock the weblog world's flow.

Next Section:

As we've seen, when applied to specific tools and situations, the terms stock and flow provide us a new lens through which we can view online communication.

In the next section (to be posted on April 7th), we'll circle back to the basics and make the case for stocks and flows- where is the value? How/when should they be used? Further we'll talk about how these terms can be applied to all sorts of media and then wrap up this series with some parting words.

Next: Back to Basics

The following article is the first in a three-part series that will serve as an introduction to two terms that have had a profound effect on me and my work. The terms are "stock" and "flow" and this article is an introduction to these terms.

Background:

In a meeting recently, Jerry Michalski drew a diagram of communication tools and media in the context of "stocks" and "flows". His diagram first introduced me to how these terms can be used to describe online communication.

After the meeting, I contacted him and we talked more about the terms, what they mean, where they originated, etc. He related that they likely originated from the economics world. Upon doing a little research, I found that the terms are used frequently in systems dynamics and economics.

Update: I have recently learned that the terms were first used by Jay Forrester at MIT in the 1950's. Thanks to Bill Harris for the info.

Jerry also related that he wasn't aware that anyone else had used the terms in the context of communications or media. With his encouragement and help, I've written this article to help introduce "stocks and flows" to the world in the context of online communication. I hope that you'll see, like me, that these terms provide a powerful new lens through which we can view and discuss online communication tools and resources.

What are stock and flow? How do they relate to online communication?

In this context, stock and flow are states of electronic communications. Communication is either in a state of flow or it is stocked, and sometimes in transit from one to the other. For example, the kind of communication that comes from an instant message is flow- its value is linked to the timeliness and context of the message. The information is used as it is created. People engage in a flow, like a conversation.

A message board archive is a good example of a stock- it is stored until needed or requested. Its value is linked to accessibility and organization as opposed to timeliness. People access a stock, they don't engage in it. Stocks are generally static and presented when requested, like search results.

General definitions:

Flow: Information flows to the user; timely, emergent and engaging
Stock: Information exists at a specific location, static, archived and organized for reference.

With the emergence of weblogs, email lists, wikis, message boards, instant messaging, etc., Internet users are surrounded with ways to communicate and share information. By understanding stocks and flows, we have a new way to analyze and codify communication resources. Stocks and flows give us a new tool for describing the applicability and value of online communication tools and methods.

An Example:

A year ago I was an online community manager. The community started as an email list and eventually moved to a message board. Before the transition to the message board, we asked members about the most important elements of the community. They overwhelmingly agreed that the email notifications were very important, but the volume had become unmanageable on occasion. Further, they saw value in a message board system that archived each message (sent in email) in a searchable and organized fashion.

Looking back, I can see this situation as a classic example of stocks and flows. The community was originally founded on pure flow – the messages flowed into email inboxes as they were posted. As the volume of messages grew, the need for stocks became apparent - the members couldn't keep up with the flow and needed a back-up in the form of message archives. The emails provided the flow, the message board provided the stock.

In this case, the ultimate value came from using stocks and flows in concert. By continuing with automatic email updates (flow), we were able to keep members engaged while at the same time giving them confidence that the messages in email were also being archived on the web site for future reference (stock).

Next Section:

As we'll see in the next section of this series, similar examples emerge when we look at other online communication resources. Specifically, we'll look at how weblogs, wikis and RSS fit into the picture of stocks and flows. This section will be posted on April 5th, please stay tuned.

Next: Weblogs Wikis and RSS