There are rumors flying around of YAWS (Yet Another Wikipedia Scandal). How should it affect peoples' perception of wiki use in organizations?
Here's a good perspective on it from a person who commented on a San Francisco Chronicle article this morning:
There is one important fact that should be kept in focus, however. Wikipedia is not some hierarchical top down business where one misbehaving leader can wreck havoc (such as can occur with our government). Rather, it represents a highly democratic and very loosely connected organization that has been mostly built on the dedicated efforts of a few thousand core volunteers. Therefore, regardless of the [alleged] misadventures of Mr. Jimmy Wales, Wikipedia will continue to grow and serve.
(If you want all the details of the alleged allegations, the Chronicle article has them. I'm not going to reprint them here in the interest of focusing on the impact of Wikipedia on organizational wiki use.)
This is the kind of news item that prompts people to think all wikis - including those that organizations might use - pose the same risks for inappropriate behavior that happens on Wikipedia.
The reality is quite different.
Remember, people in organizations are there to further common goals and get projects done. The likelihood that they'll engage in mischievous behavior on a wiki is the same as the likelihood that they'll do so using email or any other tool used for work. Which is to say that it's highly, highly unlikely. In fact, in all my work either directly managing wiki implementations or advising organizations, I've never seen a mischievous or malicious act that caused people to question the viability of wiki use.
And at the end of the day, aren't we all just to busy to engage in the kind of odd behavior of a few people associated with Wikipedia? That's a post for another day, when I'm a little less busy, perhaps
Link to original post