A Measure of Wiki Success
What does success look like? In contemplating this question, I was rather stunned by the realization that I have very little professional experience to inform my answer. In theory I â€ścollaborateâ€? with others everyday yet neither my teammates nor clients rarelyâ€”if everâ€”pose that question. Given my inexperience, I found the ideas presented in this weekâ€™s readings very helpful. The way Brown et al. structure the question of defining success is very constructive. Morville and Rosenfeld offer many specific indicators of quality and pose important ethical questions. Together, they comprise an effective framework with which to measure the success of collaborative projects like the wiki weâ€™re creating for this class.
In their book, Managing Virtual Teams, Brown et al., frame the issue of success by asking â€śWhy are you doing this project?â€? and â€śWhat will be different when you finish the project successfully (Managing 2007 pg. 99)?â€? Both these questions ask about the purpose of our project: to provide the public with a comprehensive, informative site that focuses on scientific and technical aspects of the bridge collapse. (Thank you Krista for providing the purpose statement!) In addition, everyone probably has academic or personal reasons for taking this class that are also important measures of success but which can be evaluated individually. In my case, for example, I am taking this class to advance my career.
While the first question is more general, the second question leads to specific answers and terms of success. Applied to our class project, my answers would be:
â€˘ there will be a new, and hopefully unique, wiki about the scientific and technical aspects of the bridge collapse;
â€˘ the wiki will meet our stated goal of being a media-rich site containing original, well-researched text, and direct links to primary resources and media.
Academically and personally, I will have learned about emerging technology by using Web 2.0 applications to participate in the class, write about our reading, and collaborate on the creation of a wiki.
These answers include broad, qualitative terms such as â€ścomprehensive,â€? â€śwell-researched,â€? and â€śmedia-richâ€? that are easier to evaluate when they are redefined in more precise and measurable terms. Some of this work is already done:
â€˘ â€śComprehensiveâ€? refers to the breadth of the wikiâ€™s content. The content of our wiki will include the twelve topics we will research individually.
â€˘ â€śWell-researchedâ€? could be defined by the same general standards applicable to all University writing and research.
â€˘ â€śMedia-richâ€? implies a mixture of content in various media including video, audio, still images as well as text.
â€śInformativeâ€? is another qualitative aspect that Morville and Rosenfeld suggest many specific ways to define and measure. Applying their principles of good information architecture to our wiki will lay the foundation for an informative site. They discuss various methods of organizing content but argue that good information systems have a cohesive organizational scheme and a structure that enables the user to form a quick â€śmental mapâ€? of the site (Information 2007 pg. 69).
The authors argue that organizational schemes based on topics are most cohesive. Logic is the primary advantage of topical organizational schemes. Topical organization â€ś â€¦ defines the shared characteristics of content items and suggests logical groupings of items (Information 2007 pg. 58).â€? Topical schemes also define the â€śuniverse of contentâ€? encompassed by a site, giving users a good idea of what they will find there (Information 2007 pg. 63).
Morville and Rosenfeld recommend top-down organizational structures because they aid users in forming a mental map of a site. Top-down structures anticipate the most likely questions of users including: where am I, whatâ€™s important and unique about this site, how do I get around this site, how do I search for what I want, whatâ€™s available on this site, whatâ€™s happening on this site, and where is the contact information (Information 2007 pg. 44). The top-down structure has the additional advantage of being more familiar to users and simpler to use than systems structured from the bottom-up.
Other characteristics of good organizational structure identified by Morville and Rosenfeld involve taxonomy design and labeling. In their view, the most effective taxonomies are hierarchically structured with content organized in discrete or mutually exclusive categories (Information 2007 pg. 70). Well-designed taxonomies also strike a good balance between exclusivity and inclusivity, the amount of cross-referencing and the breadth and depth of the site (Information 2007 pg. 70). Good labeling systems have the following important characteristics:
â€˘ representative of the content they link to or precede
â€˘ consistent style, syntax, specificity, comprehensiveness, presentation
â€˘ contextual, i.e., meets the userâ€™s expectations not personal associations
â€˘ narrow in scope (Information 2007 pg. 98â€“100)
Finally, I think another important measure of success involves addressing several ethical issues. First, we need to make our site accessible to people with differing physical abilities. Secondly, although our content will not focus on social aspects, I think that in general, our treatment of the subject must be dignified out of respect for those who were injured physically and emotionally by the bridge collapse.
This seems like a daunting list! At the same time, breaking success down into specific indicators makes success seem by far more attainable than lofty-sounding but vague goals. I look forward to applying these new ideas to both the wiki project and my own job.
Brown, Katherine M., Huettner, Brenda, James-Tanny, Char. Managing Virtual Teams: Getting the Most from Wikis, Blogs, and Other Collaborative Tools. Wordware Publishing, 2007.
Morville, Peter and Rosenfeld, Louis. Information Architecture for the World Wide Web. Oâ€™Reilly, 2007.