July 15, 2002
If you own a web site, chances are you've thought about Content Management Systems (CMS). CMSs are tools, typically web-based, that assist businesses in keeping their web site content accurate, relevant, and up-to-date.
CMS implementations vary widely, ranging from complex proprietary applications to ad hoc, homegrown solutions. In many circumstances, a company's CMS might simply be a process. For example, John in Marketing notices that a tag line on one of the product pages is obsolete; he emails Jane in IT and asks her to update the copy as soon as possible. She adds it to her work queue, and modifies the page within a few days. Site content, in effect, has been managed.
However a content management system takes shape, its primary task is the same: to ensure that a web site always reflects, as currently and as accurately as possible, an organization's message to the world "out there." What varies from one implementation to the next is the particular approach to that task.
As web sites become more complex and expensive to maintain, most IT managers are thinking hard about the best way to roll out a CMS. As part of that larger investigation, it is useful to examine closely the many variances between currently available systems. In this article, we'll reflect on one CMS whose approach is truly radical compared to the rest — the Wiki Wiki web.
In the words of Wiki founder, Ward Cunningham, a Wiki Wiki web site is a "collection of web-pages which can be edited by anyone, at any time, from anywhere."
That's right — Wikis are web sites whose entire content anyone — yes, anyone — can modify. Anybody can create a new page, modify or delete existing content (including content written by other users), and construct or destruct the site in general. None of the typical security mechanisms are in place. All transactions are anonymous. User registration and logins are not required; moderators do not exist (though, in a sense, everyone is a "moderator" because anyone can edit or even censor site content), and revisions are not tracked.
Don't believe it? Cunningham's original project, the Portland Pattern Repository Wiki, still exists. Visit http://c2.com/cgi/wiki and click on the "EditText" link at the bottom of the page. A form will appear that contains the current page content, which you are free to edit, modify, and delete as you wish. Click on the "Save" button, and your changes are published instantly.
Another compelling aspect of a Wiki is its approach to linking. Wiki contributors not only can include links to other pages on the Internet but they also can create links to pages that don't yet exist.
Linking to potential rather than actual pages is facilitated by a unique link style recognized by the Wiki engine. To create such a link, users craft a noun phrase describing the new page's topic as precisely as possible in "camel hump" style (for example, AlternativeJobsForProgrammers). Links to pages that don't yet exist are notated with a question mark, indicating to other Wiki users that the page requires authoring. Other users may choose to add the content or to ignore it — or even delete the page if they believe the subject is irrelevant or off-topic.
Like all web sites, Wikis are works in progress, but what sets them apart is their conscious, active, and direct engagement with the creation process itself. The web site content management and development processes are highly visible, occurring in direct view for the world to see.
The perils of Wikis are obvious: they are the same attributes that we identify as their unique benefits. All content is entirely vulnerable. Wikis rely on the good will of strangers — yet, at the same time, their trusting openness is almost an invitation for vandalism.
Wikis also tend to be aesthetically unpleasing. Because of their organic nature, they have almost no document structure. By now, most users are accustomed to and even expect the tree-like content hierarchies on most corporate web sites. Maneuvering through a Wiki site is an entirely different experience — one that many users will find confusing and frustrating at first.
It is worth mentioning that, in the face of these risks, many Wikis have existed for a long time and continue to be active, productive, and creative spaces. As such, they cannot simply be dismissed because of their apparent pitfalls.
Borrowing from the language of systems theory, we might say that most web sites are "closed systems." Unlike open systems — which accept input from external sources, process it, and return feedback or output — a closed system "has relatively impermeable boundaries that resist input and change."
In many ways, company web sites embody such impermeable boundaries. They present a certain face to the external world — a face most likely composed with a high degree of precision and care. Companies craft and refine their message, apply a web-appropriate interface to the copy, and expose it on the Internet. Firewalls and other security measures are put in place to protect that message. Control over content, down to the minutest detail, becomes essential.
Wikis turn that particular understanding of a web site on its head. Data and information flow into the system as rapidly as they flow out. Control and security are forgone in favor of openness, collaboration, and creative spontaneity. Revisions are not tracked. No distinction is made between users of different social or organizational rank.
Indeed, a Wiki community assumes a flattened hierarchy. Yet, how often do we find flattened hierarchies in business setting? When, if ever, is an almost wholly open system feasible or even desirable?
Clearly, Wikis are not appropriate for many, if not most, business web sites — nor do they try to be. But Wikis do something unique, however imperfectly or radically. They are living proof that it is possible to think about and do CMS in a truly different way.
More important, Wikis, insofar as they reflect an extreme approach to content management, remind us that CMSs (and virtually all systems for that matter) have politics. They reflect our assumptions about how business and organizations are and ought to be run, how audiences are supposed to interact with web sites that they encounter, and the very nature of information itself.
One of the most delightful aspects of a Wiki is its frankness about its underlying philosophy. For example, Cunningham's Wiki explicitly states the site's underlying design principles. Some of those principles include open, incremental, organic, unified, and observable — and the Wiki way is a direct expression those values. See http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?WikiDesignPrinciples for more explanation.
As web site consumers and developers, we might do well to consider Wiki practices before building or choosing our own Content Management Systems. What sorts of activities does a CMS need to support? How does a CMS reflect the organizational structure of a company? How do we effectively balance security and creativity/openness? Wikis, in their radical approach to content management, prompt us to ask those critical — and often unasked — questions.
Portland Pattern Repository Wiki (the original Wiki)
http://c2.com/cgi/wiki
Meatball Wiki (online culture, hypermedia collaboration, community)
http://www.usemod.com/cgi-bin/mb.pl?MeatballWiki
IA Wiki (information architecture)
http://www.iawiki.net
Personal Telco Wiki (community networking)
http://www.personaltelco.net |