Comments on: 10 Things I Hate About Wikis

By: Fred

Fred — Fri, 04 Dec 2009 13:10:29 +0000

I just don’t understand the “try confluence” comments on here. What a terrible wiki. Templates in MediaWiki are a breeze; in confluence they either don’t exist or they are a mess. And what an AWFUL user interface from confluence. Just horrible.

By: S A GOULD

S A GOULD — Fri, 15 Aug 2008 21:36:26 +0000

Looking further into wikiness, i find NO CONSISTENCY in specific repeating terms, and use incredibly poor photography that should have been, yes, EDITED/CROPPED. All of things that as a university publications person I try to maintain.
As in, if I have a publication with twenty faculty members and 18 of the photos are acceptable quality and two want me to run a Polaroid with them, I cannot do that as it makes it seem that those TWO people are somehow lesser individuals.

And it is just plain DAMN JARRING, trying to read an article on more than one person, when the terms are different. When they aren’t. As in:
â€¢ XXX is “spouse”
â€¢ XXX is “domestic partner”
â€¢ XXX isn’t even FREAKIN’ MARRIED to the person they have been linked with.

Drives me crazy. And I can do that by myself.

By: S A GOULD

S A GOULD — Sun, 10 Aug 2008 07:12:27 +0000

Hey guys… all I know is that I have only used Wiki SERIOUSLY twice and both times it was so incorrect and blatantly biased on specific individuals that- had I the time- or could EASILY post a comment (as I can here), I would have.

But I seriously don’t believe that I should have the burden-of-proof in correcting factual errors (not opinions). I don’t have the time to jump through the hoops to correct information that is a matter of public record. And I don’t care how earnest they may/may not be in wanting to correct entries, I don’t care. I go by your actions and not your words.

Any of you have serious reservations about Wiki, feel free to contact me.

By: Jason

Jason — Mon, 26 Feb 2007 13:40:09 +0000

Hi Jessica,

Yes, versioning between software releases sucks. We struggle with the same problem, and tackle it mostly by avoidance. That is, we avoid starting on the next version’s documentation until the previous has (all but) stabilised. Then we duplicate the previous version to create a new Space for the next version, and new work happens in the copy.

Still, naturally there are times when we need to update both, and this needs to be done manually. This is why I would love to see a wiki with *real* version control in the backend, that would allow branching and merging. It is really quite sad to see all the wikis that have created their own, limited version control systems. Versioning is not easy, but there is enough work out in this domain that I expect a lot better from the top wikis. I notice with interest that the Google Code wiki actually *does* use Subversion in the back end, which is a first that I know of (though it seems so obvious that I bet there are more).

By: Jessica

Jessica — Thu, 22 Feb 2007 23:04:37 +0000

Any experience transitioning documentation (e.g., for software) from one release to the next? Wikis get awful complicated -even Confluence- when trying to version between software releases, e.g., v1.0 and v1.1 – NOT just between edits on a particular page. As the head ‘librarian’ of material here, I’m herding cats… and each new release brings another litter of meows to align.

Currently, wikis do not distinguish in this matter… as perhaps you have said, wikis aren’t meant for the purpose of documentation. I wish it was just as easy to migrate to a more sophisticated option.

My colleagues are world-wide, and it is the most efficient and effective means to collaborate (read, No File Sharing; no track-changes, no waiting), while letting our users have access as soon as we ’save’. I read your blog on methodology for documentation in wikis, but the Comment is closed. Any thoughts or tips would be greatly appreciated.

By: Jerry Bakewell

Jerry Bakewell — Tue, 06 Feb 2007 16:07:29 +0000

Someone somewhere wrote: “IHateWikiWordsTheyMakeThePageShoutAtYou”. I agree!

By: Ken

Ken — Wed, 24 May 2006 14:58:08 +0000

Steve said it best, “A Wiki is better than nothing at all.” Many open source or even corporate developers (full time or temp) write code and don’t document. A Wiki is better than a bunch of unsearcheable, outdated, unmaneagable bunch of documents in closed formats sitting on some I/T server that everyone forgets about. A wiki is better than nothing at all. Try waking up on the other side of the bed.

By: Killer Content

Killer Content — Thu, 11 May 2006 10:50:16 +0000

Wiki’s nature is really chaotic and they are full of inaccurcaies that make them not so convenient to use. If ” clever guyas” eliminate all the intricacies that cause the user’s confusion wikis may become the future of internent communication (though i doubt if they will replace forums, chats, blogs – most likely not).

By: Mike F

Mike F — Thu, 27 Apr 2006 14:50:43 +0000

Why do libraries have librarians?

A good ‘living document’ Wiki requires a good taxonomy, and a taxonomy requires a maintainer….

By: Dan P.

Dan P. — Thu, 20 Apr 2006 03:11:35 +0000

I agree in part, so much that I ended up writing my own. (Shameless Plug)sk - a (very) simple wiki(/Shameless Plug) Some of my complaints are the same as yours - non-standard syntax, dislike of textboxes, etc. I tried to address these in sk by: 1) having no syntax - if you want some styling, embed some HTML (it is the language of the web, after all), and 2) making the textboxes resizable via a little JavaScript. Give it a try! However, I disagree with some of your complaints and suggested approaches for dealing with them. For example (and as other posters have pointed out) use a version control system for version control. (sk's approach to this is admittedly minimal here). And I don't think rich-text editing will help styling issues. I also agree with the poster who said that for it to maintain reaonable organization and coherence the wiki needs continual maintenance.