Well, I'm not very surprised to read that the LA Times has yanked its "wikitorials" before they even got started. I knew it wouldn't last long, but I was surprised it was effectively DOA. As I've written in many places, including my own website, wikis aren't good for everything. In fact, they are only good for a certain type of writing--the kind that Wikipedia, Wiki Travel, or the many free documentation projects produce: "Unauthored" material relatively free of polemics. Wherever you have authors, you have editorials, and where you have editorials, you don't have wikis. After all, an article with an author (or many authors) doesn't speak for everyone; the point of view expressed there is understood to be that of the authors. A wiki that hopes to be successful needs to find a subject matter that people can relate to on another level besides the personal.
To put it simply, using a wiki for a major newspaper's editorial page is to use wikis for the very thing they work so well to erase. We can perhaps agree that JFK was born on such and such a date, and was key to many important historical moments; yet any talk of whether he was an excellent President that makes the current one look like a bumbling idiot is not suitable for wiki.
That's why the encyclopedia works so well in wiki; encyclopedias are supposed to contain information about subjects that isn't "editorial." We all know the difference because we have to drill this into our writing students each semester: "You're not just presenting information; you are making an argument. Take a side. Invent one if necessary; discover a contention to coddle and call your very own." We ask for arguments and get summaries "Well, there are good and bad reasons for blah blah." Sadly, "presenting information" is what wiki excels at. Indeed, the very kind of "thesis-less" writing that so many of our students manage to consistently disappoint us with would work very well in a wiki. The strength of good encyclopedic writing is that we are given the necessary information to form our own conclusions. I don't want to look up "Bill Clinton" in the Brittanasaurus and read "An immoral man who committed adultery against his wife," just as I don't expect to read paper there exploring symbolism in Shakespaere. Just the facts, please. There are better places than encyclopedias for this kind of discourse.
Am I saying that encyclopedic writing is not somehow "editorial," in a sort of "always already" sense? Would that I were that naive. If I decide not to include any information in my entry on "Bill Clinton" about Monica, I've made a rhetorical choice no matter what I say. Even if I don't mean to, the things that I find significant and worth mentioning about Clinton are "always already" pre-determined by ideology and whatever I've been drinking or smoking.
Wikis aren't blogs! Wikis aren't discussion boards! Wikis aren't anything but wikis, and that's what's so great about them. Wiki is the the writing space of choice for those creating and assembling knowledge in the 21st century. How's that for hyperbole? :-P
Evaluating Wikis
I might add one other thought here. At C&W, I was fortunate enough to catch Bob Cummings' presentation on wikis. I met with him backstage after the curtain went down and we talked briefly about how to evaluate student work done with wikis. Cummings' strategy was to just assign the wiki project to the entire class, who would share the same grade. So, if the wiki as a whole turned out to be A work, every student would get the A grade, regardless of who did the work and who just sat on his/her butt. Of course, Cummings ran into problems, and was contemplating some other approaches to grading--maybe part based on individual work, the rest on the whole, etc.
Listening to all this, I was struck by the inapplicability of our assessment procedures to evaluate wiki work. As I see it, the "problem" that wikis pose is not how to write, really, but how to collaborate with other writers--how to be rhetorical without being Rhetorical. In other words, just as Renaissance painters worked hard to "efface" the evidence of their artifice and present a "seamless" picture of reality, wiki authors work to "efface" evidence of their political strife and "voice," even though we all know it exists no matter how innocuous the subject matter. Just as we know a painting is artificial no matter how natural it looks, we know a wiki can never truly represent consensus. The *best* wiki pages are those that *look* finished and complete--perfect. However, this perfection is an illusion. With a click we can trash the page. Sure, it might return a moment later, but we remind ourselves of the medium. We don't see truth, we see a very easily edited representation. There is no real effort in wiki to deceive. It's more honest. Obvious exceptions aside, Plato might find it groovy.
So, how do we properly grade students using wikis? Don't do it directly, that's how. Have them use wiki to construct class materials (study guides, manuals, bibs, how-to do something), etc. In other words, have them use wiki to build the tools they will need to do some other project, which will be graded with the old methods. The students must be personally invested in their wiki work and see the benefit of using it towards some more tangible "my project."
Recently I used wikis to have students generate their own blogging topics. I gave them the criteria and said, "If you don't do anything on this blog, I'll be having you blog in detail about the 18 types of pronouns, one per blog." This got them in motion. However, I also added, "If the blog topic isn't any good, I don't use it...Intensive-reflexive pronouns are important for you to know, anyway." This inspired them to edit other's blogs and make sure they were well written and addressed all of the criteria (some nonsense, really, about cognitive skills. Anyway, "NO PRON" was about the extent of it.)
What happened? Well, the students really surprised me. You can read it here. Now that I know a little bit more about how this works, I'm sure I'll be able to get even better participation next time.
Anyway, back to doing anything else but grading papers.
Grading Wikis
I had a similar problem. I was a TA and the professor (rightly) wanted to use our wiki to put together a single group report where everyone would contribute. More description on the project is here
In the end he wanted me to help evaluate the contributions so I just did a five point scale for effort and a five point scale for quality by looking at the change logs (I required author names for each change, so it worked out OK). Next time I think it'd be good to do an overall evaluation along the lines of what Cummings did for, say, 1/3 of the grade and individual marks for 2/3, too much social loafing possibility otherwise I think.
it's not about me?
"A wiki that hopes to be successful needs to find a subject matter that people can relate to on another level besides the personal."
You nailed one of the defining aspects of wiki, Matt, one I can take into the classroom as a guide. Always like guides. Guides are good. Thanks -
- mike