A post in a blog about wiki

Note: after finishing this post, I noticed the negative tone, but I'm too tired to rework it. So be forewarned! The collaborative nature and open access of wikis, it quickly became evident to me, can be good and bad. The first wiki I looked at, "Library success" blocked me right away: "because of vandalism problems, email confirmation is now required... sorry for the inconvenience." Not a positive start to my exploration, but considering the benign topic of this wiki, there is a lesson to be learned here. "Front page" talked about information overload and had a section about "criticim of wiki" which included lack of reworking so the wiki quickly becomes old in its list. Obviously, participation is what you want if you start a wiki. I also found this particular site confusing and wouldn't have found a place to even start. Maybe a bit of information overload on my part. "Subject guides" looked promising, and I liked the idea that the subjects were user friendly and down to earth. When I checked Genealogy it included an article on using metal detectors. Interesting. When I checked Biography there was only one entry, and it was the profile of a librarian. Not what I had expected, and maybe that's why no one has ever added anything here. "Waterloo Way" had clear guidelines and stated the intent nicely. There was also a good section on Etiquette. I could imagine adding information to this particular site if I was so inclined. "Mfagan", which started out as Waterloo geographic content now has the comment that it was a "list of data sources but has expanded somewhat." Somewhat is an understatement; let's just say that it is now a collection that has spun out of control... what do job links have to do with this? To me, the point is that you have to keep on topic or you'll end up with something like this. I spent some time exploring Wiki Wiki Web, or Ward's Wiki, or (this shows you how long its been around for and its importance in the world of wikis) simply Wiki: http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?WikiWikiWeb. Yup, this is the granddaddy. It's been around since 1995. I thought this might be the most informative site of all, and I wasn't disappointed. There is a whole history of all the new developments, the turf wars, the deletion wars, and terminology only real wikifreaks (my term) could relate to. I had no idea wikis had such an interesting history. There is no doubt wikis are great collaborative tools. I could envision something similar to "Subject guides" in a library setting, where users can add local content. It would, however, make our "useful websites" section redundant. Wikis have become very easy to participate in, being WYSIWYG (what you see is what you get). No degree or knowledge of programming language required. The user friendly interface would make it appealing for our users. Libraries should only enter into this after thoroughly examining the time element required, and the value of the end result. There has to be *active* participation to make a wiki work. There also has to be an appealing face put forward to encourage participation in the first place. That would mean a new look would be an absolute requirement for our library website.