Wiki Optimizing...

"A wiki tends to be like your refridgerator -- the most important thing is just getting stuff inside.  But over time, it needs to get increasingly organized, or you end up with science experiments growing near the back. LOL"

Page Objective:   Together, let's figure out how to optimize the use of a wiki... especially this cityreaching wiki... to leverage its value vs. any other Web2.0 type format.

We need your help. It's the wild wild west right now.  No opinion re wiki-style is wrong. Got any styles YOU really like?  Add a link to model pages, ok? [eg]  And say what you like about them. Or better yet, go build a page the way YOU'D like to see (most of) our pages look like.  Lead by example. Discussion Thread at the very bottom. Later, we'll distill it all down... to a beta template.

Comments on Page Summary:

• M. Reed: Great video teaser!  And speaking of other great things that people generally do here on our wiki, one is Brainstorming!  Wonderful ideas tossed out on the carpet of the page!  Kind of like putting the all the right furniture you want into a room. Now we are ready for the next step.  What is the next step you may ask?  It's sorting the pieces of information out to see which piece goes with what.  The ideas we have on each of the wiki pages are at that stage (pretty much).  Now what?  Moving the furniture (our ideas) around to just the right place, putting those arm tables (turning those one and two-liner ideas into "mini-articles") at just the right reach for the reader so they can pick up the "soda can" (the right information very quickly) like Neil did in the video without having to hunt for it..
• Have a favorite page that you been adding to a lot?  Pull it up and look at how you can reorganize the info into mini-articles, kind of like moving the pieces of information around into a new order like furniture in a room or those word magnets on refrigerators.  I have writing and editing experience in both technical and article writing and do some consulting on the side.  Please feel free to ask me for any assistance.  I promise not to rewrite anything but to help you be the writer!  I can also offer consulting on the "look and feel" of the page from my design and developer background.  I won't build it for you, but I can assist you technically and provide feedback.  Feel free to email me @ melanies.reed@gmail.com or AIM me : mellyreed.  You can call me but its LD: 812-331-2228.  I'm homebound and dealing with some health issues right now so I have to watch my energy output.

Suggest some PBwiki pages/formats you like best...  

• BarCampNashville -- Concise, even though it's a long page.  Answers all the who-what-when-where-why-how questions. [...Neil]
  • M.Reed Comment: This is a good example of how an individual wiki page is visually formatted.  See Wikipedia and Conservapedia.  Note the visual format.
• Scott Wilder's personal page here in the wiki.  Video first.  Links.  Table format -- is that a key?  [...Neil]
  • M. Reed Comment: This is a good example of a "Bio" page entry for a Wiki.  Imagine you have an encyclopedia in front of you and you want to look up the name Scott Wilder.  What would you expect to find?  A wiki allows you to find the same kind of information under that entry plus any images, multimedia or hyperlinked information pertaining to that person.  For example, including entries about individual members could be organized in your wiki in two ways: under a main topic page of members and short bios with links to entry pages like Scott's for each contributor or they could reside as independent entries if the wiki is organized alphabetically.

•  Wiki's in Plain English -- This is a beginners video but it's very well done!
• New Learning Technologies Buffet -- This is an example of a wiki by two presenters creating a presentation to the library staff at Chandler Gilbert CC.  Note they are using PBwiki.
• WikiHOW -- This one is very interesting.  It's very useful because it clearly states what the wiki is doing using a mission statement.  That helps focus the user and the contributors everytime they log in.  It shows the user how to GET STARTED.  Everything they write follows through on the premise: How To.  What is our premise, clear and short?  We want to REACH all Christians in each city and CONNECT them.  So why not make it the goal for each page to "give directions": to the meeting, to the shelter, to the talk, to the program, to the person.  Ex: giving the "directions" on how to reach Neil would be about providing his contact information.  Giving "directions" on to use the wiki would involve creating an image based, video tour of the wiki and a general explanation of the major pages and provide a link (and an orienting pic of the video) on the start page.  Giving directions over all is the mission of our wiki of how  Christians can reach other Christians no matter what city they are in.  That's just an example of the kind of thought process we could start with to better framework what we are doing.

What do you just HATE about it currently?  [Be kind, but truthful... Help us all learn, ok?]

• [from Neil...]   I hate the problems I'm having getting bullets to work the way IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII think they should.  LOL.  Maybe I'm doing something wrong.
•  [from M.Reed]... Bullet placement can be manipulated using the increase and decrease indent tool on the menu bar of the text editor.
• [from Neil...]   Yeah, you'd think.  
• aaagh! I am NOT a bullet fan--ellen5e  It's hard to add to the page when those presets are in there; makes formatting weird. I didn't ASK for a bullet, yet I am made to have one!
• If the 'bullet issue' is really a technical problem, not a conceptual problem with bullets, take heart -- the newer versions of PBwiki seem easier and more reliable re bulleting... -Neil

Principles in play... Pros & Cons?

• PBwiki excels at being quick & easy.  Low barrier to entry.  [Just a team-password.]  Thus easier to get people involved.  [Caveat:  If ours looks difficult and complex, that's our fault -- not PBwiki's.  Let's simplify, simplify, simplify.]
• There's little or no danger in TRYING stuff.  If anything screws up, a previous saved version of the page can be re-accessed [see tiny 'history' link way below] and reverted-to.
• It's collaborative.  The best information survives.  The more eyes that see a page, and the more hands that help edit it... the better the chances of it becoming highly useful to everyone.
• Wikis excel at SEARCH... because they're highly 'text-based'.  So although videos & photos are highly important, don't forget to include text that people might search on.
• Think 'encyclopedia'... Not newspaper.   That is, wikis can be great at providing the current state of ______ (whatever) topic.  In our case, that might be 'state of the Church at Indianapolis'.  Or Chicago.  Or LA., etc.  A wiki is NOT a news source that's changing daily.  But it should keep current always.  Make sense?
• Wikis can be great for project management... at least re rolling-up the current state of the project.  And what's needed next.  Example:  BarCamp.org (a separate, secular, wiki, but a nice model as a quick & simple, collaborative project manager).
• 'Brother Be Brief'... but please please please LINK.
• Over time, wikis will improve.  Content will grow.  Content will get distilled.    [Blaise Pascal once wrote a note something like this, at the bottom of a long letter to a friend... "I would have made this shorter if I'd had more time."]
• The quantity vs. quality tradeoff is always 'in play'.  That is, it's way (too?) easy to ADD quantify of information... at the expense of quality.    Thus the irony that usability can be hampered as we try to accomplish our zeal for getting people information.  And at the same time, it's way too easy to do nothing, waiting for better quality.  Nothing ventured nothing gained.  Surely there's some middle ground, somewhere between these extremes... yes?
• Chaos vs. Order... The more 'rules', the less people like to 'play'.  But without SOME rules, everyone hates the ensuing chaos.  Dee Hock calls the balance-point "chaordic".  Consider the phenomenal expansion of the internet, fueled by few rules... but none of it could have happened without at least SOME 'protocols'.
• Innovative types live near the chaotic end of the spectrum... There's always going to be institutional types coming along behind, tidying things up and locking 'em down.  An objective of the cityreaching wiki is to innovate the way we're doing the Great Commission... because whatever we've BEEN DOING doesn't seem to have worked very well.  [case in point, the Barna 4% effectiveness metric]
• "Connect great hearts & minds... They'll know what to do."  We need great-hearted people helping contribute content, and shaping content.  One of the most essential types of 'content' is... links to these great hearts & minds.  Facebook thus becomes highly helpful to this wiki knowledge-base.
• Wiki'ing together is practicing our harmony.  One core value of the cityreaching movement must be our increasing ability to harmonize in Christ and His truth.  So I guess our wiki is something of a practice-field, so to speak. 
• Wish we had a gifted wiki-optimizer role here.  That is, someone with an eye for functionality, brevity, and beauty.  And a servant spirit, willing to help leverage the work of others, by making key pages extremely useful.
• 'High real estate value' of any webpage... Video, pics, and then text....  If a picture is worth a thousand words, a good video-clip is worth a million.
• Heart & mind... working together.  I just read of a philanthropic study that showed that donors gave more to a cause when explained using anecdotal information (stories) than when presented with data (research).  In fact, it even seemed that a combination of the two did not fare as well as just the anecdotes.  Yet when queried, everyone agreed that getting the job done is the most important draw... thus the data has to be there, even if not 'making the case' using that data.  It's a paradox.  How does that apply here?  Easy... let's prioritize putting videos & pictures which optimally EXPRESS the content... maybe then provide a brief overview using text, and then provide supporting data by drilling down to linked pages.
• PBwiki will get better, over time.  But... PBwiki's formatting features aren't as 'bulletproof' as MS Word.  But then, you didn't have to pay $99 for it, either.  And they'll get better, over time.  Apparently they now have more pages online than Wikipedia, even.
• Keep in mind our primary purpose... of proliferating important info, city by city, to help expediate and accelerate the Whole Commission.
• "Info for Change"...  Let's ask ourselves... "What info is MOST needed, to expedite the Whole Commission?"
• The bulge in the bell curve is coming.  Early adopters can readily use a wiki.  But the rest of the bell-curve will be arriving soon -- count on it.
• Some people are born writers & editors.  Some aren't.   Don't expect everyone will participate by writing/editing here.
• If a page is worth doing, it's worth keeping current.  If you can't help keep it current, don't start it as a new page.
• If a page is worth doing, it's worth tagging.
• If it's worth tagging, it's worth linking to similarly tagged items.  Eg...   WORLDVIEW.
• It's a work-horse, not a hobby-horse.  Remember, the more you invest in a page, the less-likely you'll be willing to move on when you need to.  So be careful.  Don't get too attached.
• PBwiki may enhance things... making your changes obsolete.  So be careful how much time you spend optimizing things -- be prudent.  Especially here in the early stages, go for the 'low-hanging fruit".

************************

Strays....  (temporary, or for further future consideration)

• ADDING seems way easier than SUBTRACTING.   Distilling things down will become a valuable, valuable, valuable capability for us to develop asap.  Links should help considerably.
• Wiki Media software was ruled out... from the outset, because it lacked the simplicity we were looking for.
•  
•  
•  
•  
•  
•  
•  
•  

Discussion Thread.... 

• Neil:  What say we try this 'Discussion Thread At The Bottom' as part of our preferred format for our other wiki pages?  What'd ya think?
• Neil:  It would meet our goal of being really, really simple & easy.
• Neil:  And as practical, especially in the early stages of any page... let's still allow Context Comments up in the body of the wiki-page, if you specially color them like this.  Thoughts anyone?
• Is ALL this CONCISE?  I think of the wiki as like the driveway that I empty all the contents of my garage onto.  First I've gotta get everything out of the garage to be able to take inventory of what is there before I can really weed out, through out, give away and then organize what remains.  Like you said earlier... it sometimes must appear to get worse before it gets better. --ellen5e
• I enjoyed coming across this term just now... 'Wiki Gardener'... a refridgerator-cleaner-outer.  LOL.  Perfect.  We need a Wiki Gardener!
• As a matter of fact, the whole list of suggestions at Wiki Patterns is way-worth considering.  (ht: Stephen James... thanks!).... -Neil
• I especially love the concepts mentioned in the article, of having a Wiki Gardener (someone who really LIKES shaping info we toss into the wiki, and who looks for the 'science experiments' growing in the bottom of our wiki-refridgerator... LOL)... and I really like their 'Barnraising' idea... ie, getting together sometime/someplace and really crashing hard to build a particular section of the wiki... example, our Indy Mapping section. 
•