Wiki projects - compilation or consensus?
Posted by: doug in collaboration, wikis, generalWikipedia is the product not of collectivism but of unending argumentation; the corpus grows not from harmonious thought but from constant scrutiny and emendation. (Many to Many)
As hinted in a previous post on differences between wikis and blogs, wikis aren’t always used for collaborative writing. And, as the quote above reminds us, “collaboration” might not be cooperative collaboration in every wiki project.
The various ways in which “collaboration” works (or doesn’t), in different wiki projects is possible because wikis are so inherently flexible, and so initially blank, that creative folks come up with an endless supply of new ideas on how to put them to use. Even with the wide range of potential applications, most academic wiki projects seem to fall somewhere on a spectrum between two approaches to wiki collaboration:
the compilation approach: multiple authors contribute their part to a growing collection of knowledge
the consensus approach: authors work together (or perhaps against each other) to write an evolving document that reflects the perspectives of multiple contributors
The compilation approach (aka the knowledge base)
The majority of academic wiki projects I’ve seen use wikis primarily as an efficient way for a group of people to pool knowledge. Each author adds their 2 cents to the wiki, and, as a reward, benefits from the contributions of the group as a whole. In these projects, the tendency is to not edit the work of others.
An interdisciplinary project at UW-Parkside, created by Wendy Leeds Hurwitz and Shi Hae Kim is a good example:
At UW-Parkside in fall 2006, COMM 310: Communication in Everyday Life linked with TEDU 210: Teaching, Learning and Development. We put the students into groups across courses, and gave them a wiki designed to permit easy sharing of information. The Education students observed K-12 classrooms and posted fieldnotes to the wiki. The Communication students made videotapes of interaction in the same classrooms, and posted the videos, as well as transcriptions, to the wiki. All students were asked to read 10 sources and post their notes to the wiki. We created FAQ, a glossary of specialized vocabulary, and a “water cooler” where anyone could ask a question and anyone else could answer. Each student and group had their own pages, linked to those of others. Then each drew on the information collected in the wiki to write an individual paper (which was not posted to the wiki). - adapted from WiscWiki’s list of UW wiki projects
In this project, the wiki acts as an efficient clearinghouse for the data students are collecting on their classroom visits, rather than as a collaborative writing platform. Students read and draw on each others contributions, and work together to keep the resource organized, but don’t actually edit each others work.
The consensus approach
Less common, in the academic wiki projects I’ve seen, is to use the wiki as a central point for collaboration, argumentation, and consensus building.
One example is the Choose your Own Adventure mystery novel project from an intermediate French class at UW-Madison.
For this project, students worked together in groups to write a “Choose Your Own Adventure” mystery novel in French. Each group collaborated on a chapter of the story and decided on the choices the main character would make at the end of the chapter. Other groups joined in and wrote chapters corresponding to each choice. All in all, each class wrote a story with eight possible endings. - adapted from Wiki Ideas Galore!
Like many wiki projects, this one involves both the compilation and consensus approaches. The story as a whole is a compilation of the chapters submitted by each group. Each chapter is a result of collaboration and consensus among group members. (It is interesting to note however that this project was structured such that much of the consensus building and decision making happened verbally in class rather than on the wiki.)
How does your wiki work?
When I first got started working with wikis, I expected to see many more projects focused on argumentation, debate, and consensus building. I’ve been happy to see the many compilation oriented projects succeed, and it has been fascinating to see how powerful wikis can be for efficient information sharing.
But, I’m beginning to wonder - How well do wikis work for consensus oriented collaborative writing projects in academia? Are there models out there to follow? What makes these wiki projects work? Do wikis need a richer set of collaboration oriented features?
Entries (RSS)
July 24th, 2007 at 10:08 am
But, I’m beginning to wonder - How well do wikis work for consensus oriented collaborative writing projects in academia? Are there models out there to follow? What makes these wiki projects work? Do wikis need a richer set of collaboration oriented features?
Great post, Doug. Couple of thoughts on it:
I think the consensus writing projects are just harder for the instructor to implement and manage. First, you’re up against time. Consensus building takes time and you either need to have enough of it for group members to figure out how to do it on their own and let them establish their own protocols, or you need to take them through the process of what represents sound academic argumentation and debate and then let them apply it. Both paths, while academically enriching, are not time-efficient.
Second, our academic culture rewards individual achievements over group achievements. We have plenty of assessment strategies to measure the individual contribution, and that’s why our group projects tend to be more of the compilation model. Student A works on and presents section one, Student B works on and presents section two, and so forth.
Compilation projects are just easier lifting for the instructor. And if your a first time TA or this is your first time teaching in a wiki, that may be all you want to handle. It would be interesting to see how such things might be structured in a higher-level graduate course where, presumably, students make more sophisticated thoughts, are able to synthesize multiple views, and have greater buy-in to group work.
July 24th, 2007 at 5:42 pm
Good points all, Ron. You’re very right that the logistics of task design and assessment get only more complicated with the consensus approach. Still yet, I wonder if there are more people out there making it work.
And as for graduate students, I’ve often felt wikis (as well as blogs and other technology tools) would be amazing additions to graduate level courses, but for whatever reason, most of the examples I’ve seen and worked on focus on undergrads.