Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘wikis’ Category

Wikipedia for Spies: The CIA Discovers Web 2.0 – TIME.

Little piece from Time Magazine summarizing the CIA’s Intellipedia phenom.

We’ve all heard about Intellipedia, but the US intelligence community’s other forays into using social tools have been less successful:

Last September, the Director of National Intelligence rolled out a social-networking site called A-Space, with linked video and photo programs. A-Space has some 8,619 accounts, all of them top secret, but insiders say it is troubled and slow to get off the ground; at one point it was suspended because particularly sensitive intelligence was misused. New efforts at tagging and instant-messaging have also been slow.

And:

And Intellipedia’s boosters concede that their wiki is still largely an adjunct to the work of America’s intelligence analysts. No finished intelligence product for decision makers is generated from Intellipedia — National Intelligence Estimates (NIEs) are still written the old-fashioned way, authored and circulated for peer review and consensus.

That reads as if  key decision-makers in the US intelligence community view Intellipedia and similar initiatives as stuff that can be safely ignored.

Most days, I think that a low-key approach is the right one — bring 2.0 initiatives into the organization gently, start small, give everybody time to adjust. Let this stuff bubble away in the background, and it will eventually find its niche or reveal its utility.

But other times, I feel that we will never get to a government 2.0 environment, as the resistance to change in the bureaucracy is overwhelmingly strong. Add in territoriality and turf wars, big egos and fear of failure, and I get the sense that things will never really progress.

Read Full Post »

Screenshots

At the last Third Tuesday Ottawa event I was chatting with some folks about GCpedia. I mentioned the new look to the home page, and someone suggested that I share some screen grabs. Happy to oblige.

Click the thumbnails to see full size:

Statistics

As of today, GCpedia consists of:

  • 14,465 total pages (including talk pages, stubs and such)
  • 2434 pages of “real” content
  • 2642 files uploaded
  • 710,518 page views
  • 76,240 edits
  • 4296 registered users

Most viewed pages (views in parentheses):

  • Main Page (151,622)
  • Category:Communities (16,763)
  • Information management community (6,813)
  • Category:Project (6,022)
  • Applying Leading-Edge Technology (CCO Working Group) (4,928)
  • Page d’accueil (4,579)
  • Help:Getting Started (4,077)
  • Applying Leading-Edge Technology (CCO Working Group)/Best Practices (sub-working group) (3,959)
  • Enterprise Information Architecture Sub-Committee (3,452)
  • Category:Lexiconapedia (3,271)

Leaving aside the main page, help and category pages, it looks like the usual suspects are most heavily represented – IT, IM, and Communications (the acronym CCO means “Communications Community Office” – a support org for Government of Canada communicators).

Read Full Post »

Interesting semi-official video from NASA about their management culture (hat tip Dorobek Insider):

The video was created by this astronaut and originally posted by a NASA manager on his blog. NPR has some background on how and why the video was created.

The context is very different from the one I work in, but I certainly recognize some of the behaviours represented in it. Interesting dramatization of management groupthink and how it’s much easier to say “no” to something new than it is to say “yes.”

I watch this video and I’m thinking about the GoC’s efforts at integrating GCpedia and other social or 2.0 tools into it’s culture. I imagine that the managerial types represented here would have a hard time accepting unstructured, participatory and open collaboration implied by wikis and other social software tools. Weird paradox though, isn’t NASA big user of such tools? (Not to mention that how this internal video was released to YouTube points to NASA’s at least partial adoption of a 2.0 attitude)

Perhaps the org has reached a certain level of comfort with internal and team collaboration via social software, but judging from this video, the silos between the various parts of the org haven’t been broken down yet.

Perhaps the tools are only used by a small percentage of the workforce.

Perhaps there’s a time lag – the tools are there, people are starting to use them, but the deeper changes haven’t really started happening yet.

I see these things in my own workplace – various teams in the Department I work for have jumped ahead and are using wikis, instant messaging, etc., but only internally. There is a Yammer network that somebody started up, but there’s only a few of us on it (and activity is low.) No officially supported blogs that I am aware of yet.

And when I think of my immediate colleagues — who are generally uninterested in web 2.0 or social media (I often have the feeling that I’m seen as, uh, eccentric, due to these obsessions) — our team is very comfortable informally collaborating, but since we all sit in the same area and talk to each other every day, we hardly need a team wiki or to blog for each other. We’ll just pop into each others’ cubicles or call over the dividers.

Which begs the question — what is the value of these tools used in such a limited capacity? If their use is restricted to within teams already used to working together, they’re never going to have much impact. If we really want to create a Government 2.0, then wider adoption and use is key.

Read Full Post »

GC pedia computer screen

Memorable tweet from @krusk:

krusk Secret confession: I don’t like Wikis. I like the *idea* of them, I just don’t like using them at all.

I can identify with this sensation. And I gather I’m not alone. The GoC has recently seen the launch of a government-wide wiki — GCpedia (sorry if you are reading this from home, it’s hidden away behind the government firewall) — and I’ve heard from a few people that they’re having some growing pains – such as a lack of gnomes to keep things neat and tidy, and frustrations at the learning curve from a user base that’s unfamiliar with actually *using* the platform. I wondered about the choice of MediaWiki to power GCpedia, what with it’s lack of WYSIWYG editing capability, and I’ve heard folks complain about that angle also. (Great that MediaWiki is open source though.)

These issues I see as symptoms resulting from a deeper underlying cause: to fully integrate wikis into our work processes, we’ll have to change them. Wikis are about spontaneous group collaboration, and the bureaucratic culture of the GoC  is not.

While unstructured, informal collaboration might be ingrained at the team level (think: calling to your colleagues over the cubicle divider), getting collaboration between teams is much harder, and tends to require formal structure. The habits for this are well-ingrained — one person “holds the pen” on meeting agendas and minutes, everything (not just key decisions) needs approval by executives, and edits and changes are often still made on paper(!). Not  exactly conducive to wiki collaboration.

Still, it’s early days, and there are some key wiki champions in senior positions in government, which helps to push things forward. For example, there’s Jeff Braybrook, Deputy CTO at TBS (trust me it’s senior) and a driving force behind the development of GCpedia. Jeff spoke at the most recent Third Tuesday Ottawa event (which I missed due to a blazing, blinding headache. bummer).

Anyhow, I was able to pick up @thornley’s live tweets for the event, and here’s my faves. Looks like Jeff is aware of the challenges and has a good sense of which direction to head with GCpedia.

thornley Jeff Braybrook: Gov’t of Canada began GCPedia as a platform to explore web2 behind thefirewall & sort out the issues thru experience #TTO

thornley Jeff Braybrook With the GCPedia Wiki. “Everybody can see what everybody is thinking.” You can watch the ideas of the group evolve #TTO

thornley Jeff Braybrook says the adoption of social media by government of Canada will require the transformation of the gov’ts work processes #TTO

thornley Jeff Braybrook The next step is for gov’t to figure out new processes to collaborate using social media #TTO

thornley Jeff Braybrook : The technical barriers to using social software are low. We must help people know how to use it for different purposes #TTO

thornley Jeff Braybrook In 5 years, GCPedia & social media in gov’t will be invisible – totally integrated in a natural way #TTO

(photo credit: Web 2.0 – MediaWiki, by m.gifford on Flickr)

Read Full Post »

I call trend – government orgs setting up their own ‘pedias. Last week I posted about the attention that GCpedia is getting. Today I just stumbled across another recently launched ‘pedia – Calgarypedia.

It’s (you guessed it) an attempt at a wikipedia for Calgary. Set up by an org called Calgary Economic Development, which sounds like it’s an agency of the municipal administration.

Unlike GCpedia, this ‘pedia is open to the public.

Not much action so far on this wiki from what I see, but I really liked this contrib to the Introducing Calgary page:

Calgary Economy

Main Article: Industry in Calgary

OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL!

(Spotted via the Government 2.0 Best Practices wiki.)

Read Full Post »

click to see full size

click to see full size

Lots of attention paid to GCpedia lately (if you are outside the GoC firewall, you likely cannot click through).

What is GCpedia?

It’s the, erm, “Government of Canada internal wiki proof of concept” — but really it’s an attempt at creating a information sharing space for federal civil servants to improve decision making, processes, and ultimately service delivery. Borrows a little from the Intellipedia concept, and closer to home, it’s building on the success of the Department-wide wiki experience at Natural Resources Canada.

Here’s some reactions to GCpedia from around the interwebs:

My two cents: Yes it’s a great step forward, and it’s a good idea to keep it internal for now. My main worry is about usability for newbies.

Why? For most of the potential user base, this wiki will be their first real exposure to social computing at work. Make no mistake there will be a learning curve, and it makes sense to me to have folks’ first steps in this direction take place behind the firewall.

The geeks among us have been waving the social media, web 2.whatever flag for a while now (I’m a johnny-come-lately to be sure, but I do enjoy drinking the koolaid), but from what I see in the cube farm around me, this hasn’t percolated outwards too much.

I know that the mantra is “it’s not about the technology” is au courant, but I’m afraid that at first, it really still is about the technology. Or the interface at least.

Wikis depend on contributions, which means that folks need to actually be able to make edits successfully – i.e. they need to be able to actually use them.

Which makes the fact that GCpedia is running on MediaWiki kinda tricky — there’s no WSYWIG editing, and for a lot of my colleagues that’ll be a huge barrier to participation – I’m talking about folks who’s computing activities are pretty much limited to email, Microsoft Word and a browser. Maybe Excel too, if you are really lucky. They can handle their blackberries for email (but don’t ask them how to get on the Web using their handhelds). Don’t get me wrong, they are smart cookies, but their patience with computers and software and fiddling about in the interwebs is, well, lower than mine.

How familiar are these to you?

How familiar are these to you?

So dealing with the wiki will be an issue in terms of usability. Wiki editing, with all those single quotes and square brackets and whatnot, is confusing to people with no experience doing markup. (I’ve been able to fake it by copying from examples I find that are similar to what I want to achieve, with mixed results.) The editing toolbar also has unfamiliar buttons. Persevering types will get over it, but it will be alienating for large numbers of bureaucrats. I can envisage GCpedia becoming quickly skewed to a place for geeks in government.

I gather that the choice of wiki platform is robust (after all, it powers Wikipedia), so it can scale well. But I’m worried that the interface will result in contributions being limited to IT folks and a few other enthusiasts (wannabes?). And that’s a very small slice of the bureaucracy, one that arguably has the least to gain from GCpedia.

Perhaps my trepidation is misplaced. I certainly hope so – I want to see GCpedia succeed rather than fail. And I gather that the NRCan wiki that I referred to above is also built on MediaWiki – and from what I have heard and seen, it’s been very successful. Will have to find out more about how they have dealt with these challenges.

Read Full Post »

I was struggling to explain to a colleague a little while back about how wikis could be a fantastic way to streamline the process of creating and revising documents in our workplace. How I wish I had known then about this brilliant little infographic:

(Click to see at fullsize. Found via this blog – not sure what language it’s in… German? Dutch?)

What this captures perfectly for me is how wikis can enable version control for your content in a way that is impossible via the usual email-based methods. It’s amazing how simple it is – just by sending everyone to the document rather then sending the document around to everyone, you’ve solved the problem.

This is an issue that has been bedevilling my colleague for a long time – she’s an editor, and so needs to be reassured that she is working on the latest version of whatever it is she is editing. Because all too often, she finds out later that the version of that news release she just spent an hour cleaning up is out-of-date, and so she has to do it all over again.

Not to mention that working via wikis in an editorial setting would allow you to avoid having to deal with the cringe-inducing horror of “track changes.”

Read Full Post »

Wikipedia gives me a severe case of cognitive dissonance. It’s what happens when I see articles like the one posted to Slate last Friday: “The Wisdom of the Chaperones — Digg, Wikipedia, and the myth of Web 2.0 democracy” (hat tip Mathew Ingram).

It was also my reaction to the comment I received on my last post on Wikipedia. Said Kelly Martin, whom I gather is a frequent contributor (an admin?), and so has that insider’s perspective that I lack:

I don’t think Wikipedia has been a wasted effort, but I do think that Wikipedia is approaching its useful endpoint and may have already reached it; that is, Wikipedia has created most of the value it can hope to create and will spend increasingly more of its effort merely staving off efforts to diminish that value, and will slowly decline as more and more of its committed volunteers become hopelessly mired in rearguard actions.

Wise words, yes, but….

… But, when I’m using Wikipedia, it usually seems like it’s OK.

Take for instance the entry for the Federal Identity Program – I happen to know a little about FIP from my day job at Industry Canada. And reading through the article at Wikipedia, I have to say they got it pretty much right: they’ve captured the essential elements of what FIP is about — the system of logos used to identify Canadian federal government buildings, publications and websites — and they’ve done it without adding too much detail. And there’s a high-quality image of the Canada wordmark and one that shows it in one of its most famous uses — on the Canadarm. It’s just like a “real” encyclopedia: a factual, high level summary of the topic.

So what’s the deal? Is Wikipedia dead? Is it useless? I don’t think so. But then I’m just looking at it as a typical user, not a contributor. Perspective is everything.

Read Full Post »

So this blog is an experiment right? A place to bat around ideas & try things out. So a week ago I made a pollyannaish post about wanting to trust in open, mass collaboration.

And then yesterday, @doshdosh pointed me to an article on a particularly nasty conflict of interest situation over in the land of the Wikipedians — see “Wikipedia ruled by ‘Lord of the Universe’“. It seems that a key admin on the site, one who happens to be one of the most frequent contributors to Wikipedia’s conflict of interest policy has edited that policy so that it allows him to prevent criticism of the guru/cult leader he follows from appearing in Wikipedia. Eeeeew, that’s a stinky situation.

I won’t rehash the gory details of this case, you can read all about it for yourselves. But it’s a bit of a slap in the face to my hopes of trusting in open collaboration. I’m so naive…

Actually in poking around while writing this post, I came across something which could indicate that this particular situation is on instance of a more systemic problem.

Using a common SF trope, Wikipedia is a quintessential post-apocalyptic warlord society. The warlords (admins) reign over subdomains of a generally anarchic space. The periodically fight each other (wheel wars), and participate in planned or ad hoc campaigns against each other. At the same time, they prevent the rise of additional opposition through exile (blocking) and assassination (banning), or cultivate acolytes and sycophants with privileges and rewards (tolerated rule-breaking, barnstars, admin status).

The warlords trade and jockey for status among themselves using a variety of mechanisms, including ritual combat — often with proxy fighters (ArbCom), denunciation (RFC), and whispering campaigns (IRC, off-wiki in general), and when one is weakened, they will ruthlessly turn on him/her (cf. Kelly Martin, Tony Sidaway). (Source: a forum post from Wikipedia Review quoted in Wikipedia Governance: the power of admins on the P2P Foundation blog)

It’s World of Wikipediacraft!

All joking aside, this paints a pretty unflattering picture of the Wikipedia community. I guess this goes to show that if you really want some kind of mass, open collaboration, it really will take a lot of sustained effort to maintain it.

I still think the wiki model is a wonderful invention that’s worth pursuing, and this stuff is totally at odds with my usual experience in using Wikipedia. Most times when I look something up in Wikipedia, the tone of language is neutral, it’s well confirmed by other sources, etc. etc.

So are these situations exceptions to the rule? Do the power politics in the Wikipedia community negate the value of Wikipedia itself? How can we safeguard open communities from this kind of thing? Does the effort involved in making open or mass collaboration work outweigh the value of doing it?

Questions, questions. It’s certainly got the wheels turning inside my lil’ head.

Read Full Post »

The kerfuffle about the Twitter Packs got me thinking about the wiki model and open collaboration more generally. It seems to come down to how much you trust openness. Which really means how much you can trust others.

Maybe it’s because of where I work – the culture of the federal bureaucracy here in Canada is the exact opposite of open collaboration. When you are trying to get something done, you constantly run into walls thrown up by others protecting their turf. Information flows are routinely restricted (I heard someone recently – was it the Everything is Miscellaneous guy? – joking that one could define the management function as preventing information from getting around) . If I had to generalize, I’d say that civil servants do not trust each other. Trying to deal with this all the time sure gets tiresome.

So you can see why I find that online collaboration is such a breath of fresh air. It amazes me to see how willing people are to share, to help, to participate online. And generally how well it works. Wikipedia, warts and all, is the poster child for this I guess. Sure the idea of an open wiki that anyone can edit is far from perfect, and the crowd often shows an appalling lack of wisdom, and haters will always be out there. So it would be wise to think carefully about what you choose to do in the social space online. But I still figure that it’s worth a try. Is it?

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.