The Wiki Witch of the Web

I have done some research into wikis in general and wikipedia in specific these last few days. From some of the literature I have attained it seems that there's an awful lot of talk that wiki's are either an incredible revolution or the worst resource on the web. I am more than a little befuddled by all of the apparent polemic effect of such a simple concept for a web application.

Years ago, when the internet was just rising into the public concsience, and I had only a dim understanding of what could be done when you let computers talk to each other, I sort of envisioned the web as a collection of wiki-type sites. I just assumed that the most useful thing someone could do with web communication was to set up a commonly held and maintained source of information and entertainment. Later when I found out how websites really worked, I was a little disappointed, then I heard of the idea of a "killer application". I guessed that meant that people were trying to tap the secret of how to create the kind of internet I envisioned. A while later the whole idea of the internet became a little mundane for me (that's kind of sad now that I reflect on it, it's a little like taking the stars for granted) and I learned from an urban geography professor that e-mail remains the best example of a killer ap and I guess I agreed at the time. So dim had my hopes for the web become that when some one told me about wikipedia, I thought "Oh, somebody wants to make the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy." That thought alone should have sent me leaping into the air except I only conceived of the site as a sad rip-off instead of the full blown realization of a dream that now exists. (Sidebar: For those of you unfamiliar with the science-fiction/comedy writings of Douglas Adams, the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galxy is a ficticious book created by aliens to accumulate all knowledge in the universe including facts, cultures, trivia, and the bizarre. The Guide is compiled by many independent reporters who can add to it or access it via a shared network. This is obvious to us now but when the book first came out in 1979 it still qualified as science fiction. By the way I recommend everyone read the novel for themselves.)

It took me a while to realize just how fantastic a resource wikipedia could be, and , as some of the research I've done shows, a fantastic object for future study itself. The way the website develops, what kind of information can you find there, and how are conflicts over the entries resolve, are all questions worthy of deep study by a whole variety of social scientists. I have found some enteries that discuss how teachers can form whole entire lesson plans on wikipedia, not the information in the enteries, but the website itself. I contend that historians, anthropologists, sociologists, behavorial psychologists, and many more could benefit greatly from researching wikis. They create microcosms of human activity that serve as perfectly sized samples for detailed and reliable investigation. I was reminded of another idea by Douglas Adams, when he explained his fascination with computers. He contended that what made computers great wasn't so much anything we already used them for, but what they represented, which was the means to model anything. A computer can model a typewriter, a calculator, a television, the Sears catalouge, an ecosystem, a beating heart, anything. While so far computers have been models for either basic tools or advanced scientific concepts, I have been giving thought to how they could model something of use to social sciences and the humanities. I believe wikis are just computer models of cultures, total cultures worthy of study, with their own rules, traditions, beliefs, conflicts, and historical record, all of it constantly shifting exactly as any real world culture would. Thoughts like this have made me terribly excited about the possible uses of wikis. I know realize a wiki isn't a killer ap. It's so much better than that; it's a living application.