Slashdot Mirror
Wikinomics
peterwayner writes "If you're jazzed by the communitarian impulses driving Wikis, idea agora, Web 2.0 and other collaborative
happenings, you'll be pleased to know that the new book Wikinomics is a great gift for that boss, spouse,
or friend who doesn't quite grok it yet. The only logic bomb hidden in this statement is that much of what is
wonderful in this book is wonderful because it's a book printed on pulp and written by two and only two authors. That
is, the book is good because it's not a wiki." Read the rest of Peter's review.
Wikinomics: How Mass Collaboration Changes Everything
author
Don Tapscott, Anthony D. Williams
pages
320
publisher
Penguin Group
rating
8
reviewer
Peter Wayner
ISBN
1591841380
summary
The pros and cons of wikis and their place in business
This statement isn't exactly true. The authors, Don Tapscott and Anthony Williams, have a wiki site at www.wikinomics.com devoted to the book. You can edit the wiki and have your say, but that's not what they're asking folks to buy. For the price of the book, you get a well-designed collection of thoughtful anecdotes stitched together by two talented business writers and polished by a good editor. They've made a good attempt to cover most aspects of the topic and they do an excellent job of explaining why the ideas are important for CEOs that are struggling to move their business forward. All of this is almost as portable as an iPod , dramatically less expensive and guaranteed never to need new batteries.
The tone of the book is bright and optimistic about how openness and wiki principles will help companies. We hear about how the wikipedia covered the London subway explosions, the way that Innocentive is opening up the R&D process for companies and the surprising inventiveness of Google maps users. The descriptions are thorough and well-researched, as far as they go, and when they're done going, the writers summarize them well. It's clear that the writers feel that the word "wikis" should be the new one word answer that CEOs should trot out when faced with the kind an impossible question, the kind of question that they the answered with "Internet" during the 1990s and "China" after the turn of the millenium.
The great advantages of the pulp-bound book become clear as you work your way through the text. In one section, for instance, Tapscott and Williams dismiss Jaron Lanier's worry that wikis can devolve when a smart mob develops the the same kind of "mass stupidity" that brought us Pol Pot or the Stalinist movement. "The winners will outnumber the losers", say the authors and conclude that Lanier "ran afoul". I don't really agree with the easy way that they dismissed the danger and if I had a wiki edit button in front of me, I would change the text to amplify Lanier's warnings. I've watched the mob rule delete perfectly good information from the wikipedia for no other reason than it wasn't "notable". The revision wars are legendary and any savvy wiki reader knows that skirmishes are more common than we would like. The well-meaning editors at the Wikipedia have probably destroyed more knowledge in the name of notability than the book burners of history. At least it's still there in the article history. But since Tapscott and Williams wrote a book that doesn't come with a wiki edit button, the text is better off because I didn't glue in my own divergent rant.
The optimism of the book is contagious and it would be a shame for it to be limited by a neutral point of view. Wikis organize casual information like how to install software, and this is the kind of job that is very important to business. Wikis may just be the wrong tool for, say, capturing political truthiness, but the book gives several good examples of how they energize corporations by making it easier for divisions, groups, and project teams to cooperate without going through traditional channels. If a business wants to formalize its collective intelligence, a wiki offers an ideal amount of flexibility.
If the book needs any editing, it would be to add more skepticism. At the beginning, they hint that they will address the kind of concerns that led Bill Gates to wonder about how society will pay for innovation if there's no profit incentive, but analyzing the limitations of the wikiworld isn't really their goal. There's little discussion of endeavors that have largely failed like Wikinews. That experiment with collaborative reporting had two articles on the day I wrote this and one article on the day before. (December 19 and 20th).
I've begun to feel lately that there is a real danger that free information will drive out paid information in much the same way that economists note that cheap money drives out the dear.
It's probably too early for us to have a firm grasp on the downsides to the wiki world and so it might be unfair to expect the book to be much of a buzz kill. One of the biggest logical problems I've found with the wikipedia is the inconsistent way that the movement treats traditional scholarship. On one hand, we're supposed to revel in the way that the wikipedia is often better than traditional mechanisms, but on the other hand the wikipedia gives more weight to outside sources. On the day I wrote this, the guide counseled, "Avoid weasel words such as, `Some people say ...' Instead, make your writing verifiable: find a specific person or group who holds that opinion and give a citation to a reputable publication in which they express that opinion." If the wikis become good enough to rival if not replace original sources, where will the wikis find the outside beacons of authority? Any strict logician will realize that there's a danger of proving 1=0 with this system, although I realize that all grown ups know that life is filled with logical inconsistencies like that.
The book, for instance, doesn't really question why the Wikipedia worked but the Wikinews didn't, something that no one may really know. The tone is closer to Ray Kinsella than Crash Davis. It celebrates Cory Doctorow, the famous editor of BoingBoing.net, a wonderful blog that I read daily. The authors explain how Doctorow gives away digital copies of his books because "his problem isn't piracy, it's obscurity."
Perhaps that's true, but a deeper question is how the wikis, mashups, and mixes will find their benchmarks of authority, their geodetic markers in memespace, their means of support. To test this danger, I wrote this greasemonkey script to count the words in a webpage between certain tags. On the day I wrote this, the admittedly imprecise script found 11788 words on the front page of Boing Boing, of which 6472 were between <blockquote> tags. That's about 50% borrowed text.
So far, this non-stop homage, this pantheon of fair use sells ads and seems to do quite well — Wikinomics suggests that BoingBoing's "readership now eclipses most mainstream media outlets." So why bother playing by the old school rules when you can just let others do the work while you push the boundaries of fair use and make money? There is a real danger that the original sources will find themselves starved for air as the Wikipedia and others fair use devotees suck up the top search rankings.
This may be why I think the book was right to bring these wiki worlds to the business community. At first I thought it was rather cynical to package up the wiki ideals into a neat bundle for the business leaders, but now I think that businesses are the ones who can really use and support the ideals. We now know that wikis can't be trusted for important, contentious areas of truthiness like politics, news, history, or any place where there's a difference of opinion about the facts, but it can still be ideal for semi-closed environments with outside means of support. I can imagine that wikis would be great for a corporation that needed to manage communication between the two divisions in different states. Openness gets rid of the natural inertia of bureaucracies. And it's clear that every company should have a wiki devoted to the user's guide so the customers can add what the manual writers never anticipated. Wikis allows one group to move ahead without asking another "mother may I". The umbrella business can pay the bills for keeping the lights on.
My guess is the folks in business who need to get things done may be the only ones who support the wikiconomy in the long term after the average joe gets a bit bored and tosses the wikis onto the pile of amusing distractions with the CB radios. The businesses are the ones with the real incentives to embrace the values of wikiness. And if you've spent a few years in the cubicle trenches, you know that words like "truthiness" have a certain ring to them.
Peter Wayner is the author of Translucent Databases and 12 other books.
You can purchase Wikinomics: How Mass Collaboration Changes Everything from bn.com. Slashdot welcomes readers' book reviews -- to see your own review here, read the book review guidelines, then visit the submission page.
This statement isn't exactly true. The authors, Don Tapscott and Anthony Williams, have a wiki site at www.wikinomics.com devoted to the book. You can edit the wiki and have your say, but that's not what they're asking folks to buy. For the price of the book, you get a well-designed collection of thoughtful anecdotes stitched together by two talented business writers and polished by a good editor. They've made a good attempt to cover most aspects of the topic and they do an excellent job of explaining why the ideas are important for CEOs that are struggling to move their business forward. All of this is almost as portable as an iPod , dramatically less expensive and guaranteed never to need new batteries.
The tone of the book is bright and optimistic about how openness and wiki principles will help companies. We hear about how the wikipedia covered the London subway explosions, the way that Innocentive is opening up the R&D process for companies and the surprising inventiveness of Google maps users. The descriptions are thorough and well-researched, as far as they go, and when they're done going, the writers summarize them well. It's clear that the writers feel that the word "wikis" should be the new one word answer that CEOs should trot out when faced with the kind an impossible question, the kind of question that they the answered with "Internet" during the 1990s and "China" after the turn of the millenium.
The great advantages of the pulp-bound book become clear as you work your way through the text. In one section, for instance, Tapscott and Williams dismiss Jaron Lanier's worry that wikis can devolve when a smart mob develops the the same kind of "mass stupidity" that brought us Pol Pot or the Stalinist movement. "The winners will outnumber the losers", say the authors and conclude that Lanier "ran afoul". I don't really agree with the easy way that they dismissed the danger and if I had a wiki edit button in front of me, I would change the text to amplify Lanier's warnings. I've watched the mob rule delete perfectly good information from the wikipedia for no other reason than it wasn't "notable". The revision wars are legendary and any savvy wiki reader knows that skirmishes are more common than we would like. The well-meaning editors at the Wikipedia have probably destroyed more knowledge in the name of notability than the book burners of history. At least it's still there in the article history. But since Tapscott and Williams wrote a book that doesn't come with a wiki edit button, the text is better off because I didn't glue in my own divergent rant.
The optimism of the book is contagious and it would be a shame for it to be limited by a neutral point of view. Wikis organize casual information like how to install software, and this is the kind of job that is very important to business. Wikis may just be the wrong tool for, say, capturing political truthiness, but the book gives several good examples of how they energize corporations by making it easier for divisions, groups, and project teams to cooperate without going through traditional channels. If a business wants to formalize its collective intelligence, a wiki offers an ideal amount of flexibility.
If the book needs any editing, it would be to add more skepticism. At the beginning, they hint that they will address the kind of concerns that led Bill Gates to wonder about how society will pay for innovation if there's no profit incentive, but analyzing the limitations of the wikiworld isn't really their goal. There's little discussion of endeavors that have largely failed like Wikinews. That experiment with collaborative reporting had two articles on the day I wrote this and one article on the day before. (December 19 and 20th).
I've begun to feel lately that there is a real danger that free information will drive out paid information in much the same way that economists note that cheap money drives out the dear.
It's probably too early for us to have a firm grasp on the downsides to the wiki world and so it might be unfair to expect the book to be much of a buzz kill. One of the biggest logical problems I've found with the wikipedia is the inconsistent way that the movement treats traditional scholarship. On one hand, we're supposed to revel in the way that the wikipedia is often better than traditional mechanisms, but on the other hand the wikipedia gives more weight to outside sources. On the day I wrote this, the guide counseled, "Avoid weasel words such as, `Some people say ...' Instead, make your writing verifiable: find a specific person or group who holds that opinion and give a citation to a reputable publication in which they express that opinion." If the wikis become good enough to rival if not replace original sources, where will the wikis find the outside beacons of authority? Any strict logician will realize that there's a danger of proving 1=0 with this system, although I realize that all grown ups know that life is filled with logical inconsistencies like that.
The book, for instance, doesn't really question why the Wikipedia worked but the Wikinews didn't, something that no one may really know. The tone is closer to Ray Kinsella than Crash Davis. It celebrates Cory Doctorow, the famous editor of BoingBoing.net, a wonderful blog that I read daily. The authors explain how Doctorow gives away digital copies of his books because "his problem isn't piracy, it's obscurity."
Perhaps that's true, but a deeper question is how the wikis, mashups, and mixes will find their benchmarks of authority, their geodetic markers in memespace, their means of support. To test this danger, I wrote this greasemonkey script to count the words in a webpage between certain tags. On the day I wrote this, the admittedly imprecise script found 11788 words on the front page of Boing Boing, of which 6472 were between <blockquote> tags. That's about 50% borrowed text.
So far, this non-stop homage, this pantheon of fair use sells ads and seems to do quite well — Wikinomics suggests that BoingBoing's "readership now eclipses most mainstream media outlets." So why bother playing by the old school rules when you can just let others do the work while you push the boundaries of fair use and make money? There is a real danger that the original sources will find themselves starved for air as the Wikipedia and others fair use devotees suck up the top search rankings.
This may be why I think the book was right to bring these wiki worlds to the business community. At first I thought it was rather cynical to package up the wiki ideals into a neat bundle for the business leaders, but now I think that businesses are the ones who can really use and support the ideals. We now know that wikis can't be trusted for important, contentious areas of truthiness like politics, news, history, or any place where there's a difference of opinion about the facts, but it can still be ideal for semi-closed environments with outside means of support. I can imagine that wikis would be great for a corporation that needed to manage communication between the two divisions in different states. Openness gets rid of the natural inertia of bureaucracies. And it's clear that every company should have a wiki devoted to the user's guide so the customers can add what the manual writers never anticipated. Wikis allows one group to move ahead without asking another "mother may I". The umbrella business can pay the bills for keeping the lights on.
My guess is the folks in business who need to get things done may be the only ones who support the wikiconomy in the long term after the average joe gets a bit bored and tosses the wikis onto the pile of amusing distractions with the CB radios. The businesses are the ones with the real incentives to embrace the values of wikiness. And if you've spent a few years in the cubicle trenches, you know that words like "truthiness" have a certain ring to them.
Peter Wayner is the author of Translucent Databases and 12 other books.
You can purchase Wikinomics: How Mass Collaboration Changes Everything from bn.com. Slashdot welcomes readers' book reviews -- to see your own review here, read the book review guidelines, then visit the submission page.
The review links to B & N, but it looks like Amazon has it cheaper if you look at the "Used and new..." listings.
If you're jazzed by the communitarian impulses driving Wikis, idea agora, Web 2.0 and other collaborative happenings
You know, in the 60s, they would have called it something different.
The theory of relativity doesn't work right in Arkansas.
"If you're SLANG by the BUZZWORD BUZZWORD FAD, FAD, BUZZWORD and other BUZZWORD SLANG, you'll be pleased to know that the new book FADBUZZWORD is a great gift for that TOOL, DUPE, or IGNORAUMUS who doesn't quite TIRED CLICHE it yet. The only SLANG hidden in this statement is that much of what is wonderful in this book is wonderful because it's a book printed on pulp and written by two and only two authors. That is, the book is good because it's not a FAD."
Any sufficiently well-organized community is indistinguishable from Government.
I've begun to feel lately that there is a real danger that free information will drive out paid information in much the same way that economists note that cheap money drives out the dear.
Not the same thing.
"cheap money drives out the dear" means that when you have counterfiet (or bebased/ inflated) coins/money in the market, people will hoard the genuine coins (thereby driving it out of the market). This is what happened to US silver coins and what is currently happening to nickels and dimes. In this case, the good money is driven out of the market because it is more precious and people prefer the good money to the bad.
In the case of information, if free information 'drives out' paid information from the market, it will be because the people reject the paid information and prefer the 'free information'.
So, good money and paid information are driven out of the market, they happen for different (and opposite) reasons.
Reaganomics
It's like sex, except I'm having it!
"Communitarian"? "Idea agora"? "Collaborative happenings"?
You need to cancel your subscription to "Wired" magazine, my friend. And then kill yourself.
If you're rolling your eyes already, wait til you get to "geodetic markers in memespace"...
Tapscott and Williams dismiss Jaron Lanier's worry that wikis can devolve when a smart mob develops the the same kind of "mass stupidity" that brought us Pol Pot or the Stalinist movement.
The funny thing (besides the usual question of whether Jaron Lanier has ever actually done anything) is that there's actually a failure of imagination here, as online collaboration brings us entirely new forms of stupidity! For example, as giggling Colbert fans vandalize Wikipedia under the delusion that anything is somehow clever-funny when said with raised eyebrows.
What I'm listening to now on Pandora...
That was some serious word salad article.
after reading that power-prep fluff i feel like i've been violated. this review was crap.
i dont give a damn if you like wiki or not, just end the fanboi lip service.
It seems the quality of slashdot's editorial / review policy has declined over the years -- I remember, not that far back, when such blatant marketing-speak 'reviews' would've never made it.
Data: the book's release date (to bookstores) was Jan 2. And now, on Jan 3, we have this blatant marketing-posing-as-review. That's pretty depressing - for slashdot.
I used to trust this site for interestingly filtered material - somewhat eclectic, often varied, but typically filtered with intelligence and flair.
I guess the good old days are over.
And, moreover, the book just isn't that good -- or at least it isn't if the content of the book is anything like the series of pedestrian articles the authors have published in the Globe and Mail over the past few days. Most of this stuff will be old hat to any Slashdot reader. But more importantly, there is nothing in their analysis that goes anything beyond what you can read in existing published reports, blog sites, or research reports. It's just a compilation of other peoples' work - pulled into a neat package but lacking any insight or deep thinking you'd expect from an organization called "New Paradigm".
So basically the same old paradigm -- repackage others ideas and resell.
I think you left out 3 or possibly 4 of the currently most overused buzzwords in your article summary. Please fix.
These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
Wally: Bingo, sir.
I've begun to feel lately that there is a real danger that free information will drive out paid information in much the same way that economists note that cheap money drives out the dear.
Get over the pulp publishing model. People published books before there was a buck to be made and they will publish even if the worst of your fears come true.
How can I say that? Easy, the information is already "free" at the library and book publishers and book stores thrive anyway. It can be argued that it's easier to get things from the library than it is to get them from a book store.
There is no downside to easier access to publishing and knowledge. Free is good.
DMCA, Hollings, Palladium. What might have sounded like paranoia is now common sense.
Wikipedia is drowning under the incoming dreck. Here are the last ten new articles on Wikipedia today:
Net new encyclopedic content added: zero. That's Wikipedia today. It takes an army of hard working editors to fight off all the obvious dreck, and they're falling behind.
That is, the book is good because it's not a wiki.
The book is also good because it's not a dead moose. What's your point? Wikis and books are different things.
Wikipedia "development" is like the mailing lists of a certain unnamed Linux distro. Thank goodness true direct democracy doesn't exist outside of a few online communities. Because experience shows that it is the opposite of meritocracy. Meritocracy is wherethe best and the brightest quietly run things. Online "communocracy" is where the worst and loudest idiots scream through their petty issues.
Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
Barnes and Noble is selling this book for $18.16, but Amazon.com is only selling it for $15.57!
Save yourself $2.59 by buying the book here: Wikinomics. That's a total savings of 14.26%!
I don't really agree with the easy way that they dismissed the danger and if I had a wiki edit button in front of me, I would change the text to amplify Lanier's warnings.
And then I would revert it, because you have provided no evidence for this beyond your own opinion (which is original research).
Really, this "review" is a bit too much about the reviewers own impressions of the social trends the book describes, than about the book itself.
Hi,
Just did a quick survey of new entries into the wikipedia. Found one that was up for speedy deletion and a couple that will probably remain, including ones on:
= Chzech female serial killer
- Hawaian football team
- small lake somewhere in nowheresville, US
- somewhere, smalltown USA
And ofcourse a gazillion edits to a gazillion pages, some big some minor, most probably leading to a better text. So yes you found the bad ones. But unfortunately you disqualified yourself right away by only listing the bad ones and not compairing it to the amount of good ones.
Fact is. The Wikipedia is a numbers game. It gambles on the fact that the majority of the world wants to do good. It improves this numbers game by making it easier for the good people to fix what the bad people have done bad than it is for the bad people to make bad what the good people have done good. (a couple of seconds edit to fix the bad, vs a couple of minutes to trash a page properly or to set up a spam page) It could make this even easier by tweaks to the User Interface, but hey those will come in the coming years.
Use Adsense for Charity
The comment does not really show a decline. The person posting the parent comment had obviously not read the interview to its finish, the review was quite negative toward the end. [The review falls into the same trap as many done by "professional" reviewers, namely to function as a soapbox for the reviewers opinion on the subject matter of the book, rather than on the book itself.] Not reading TFA before commenting has always been a hallmark of /., so no decline there.
Of course, when I read the comment it was moderated +5. Usually a comment doesn't get more than one or two positive moderations before cooler heads who have had time to read TFA prevails, and moderate the comment down. So maybe the comment does after all demonstrate a decline.
In which we learn that bad books drive out the good.
You are welcome on my lawn.
I've run a fairly popular independent news site for several years and I have experience with the Indymedia network. I also participate on Wikipedia. When Wikinews launched, I could see right away that the Wikipedia project was getting in over their collective heads. It's one thing to luanch successful reference tool projects such as Wikipedia, Wiktionary, Wikiquote, and so on, quite another thing to get into the news business. If you are familiar with how the news media works and how the new forms of online news work, the problems with Wikinews should be obvious. The main problem with Wikinews is that it isn't fast enough for the news cycle. It's one thing to tinker with and edit a Wikipedia article over weeks and months. A news site has to be publishing new stories throughout the day. This rapid turnover of stories is too much for something that relies on collaborative news editing. Another problem with collaborative news editing is that journalism is hard. It's not about writing a Wikipedia entry on some subject you are a fanboy about. Writing good news stories involves research, good writing, talking to sources, doing more research, and so on. Finding people who have the skills and determination to do this for FREE is difficult. Indymedia started in 1999 as an independent news network. It's been very successful, but almost every Indymedia local site suffers from a lack of original stories on local news. It's easy to write an account about a protest or an op-ed about Bush, but putting together a story on a local issue is difficult. There is a reason why the conventional wisdom in the mainstream media is that it costs money to do local news. Another reason why Wikinews failed to catch on is because there are already a plethora of excellent news sites, ranging from the big boys like CNN and the New York Times, to hundreds of small independent sites. Wikipedia made a splash because there weren't really any online encyclopedias that allowed open, mass participation. Wikinews just isn't anything new or special.
Any strict logician will realize that the English language is imprecise enough that it is easy to make fallacious claims of "logic" or "paradox" based on naive parsing and superficial interpretation.
In this case, there is no inconsistency. Wikipedia aims to become a premier tertiary source (i.e., merely summarizing established knowledge), fulfilling the role of both traditional and specialized encyclopedias. It does not seek to replace primary and secondary sources (those which provide new information and interpretation). In fact, any attempt to do so in Wikipedia will be deleted because it is against their official policy. So, even if it succeeds in eliminating all competing tertiary sources (which seems unlikely), there is no reason why Wikipedia should lack reliable primary and secondary sources to cite and summarize.
It is precisely this distinction that the reviewer fails to grasp in his complaint about deletion of (unspecified) "good information" on the grounds of non-notability. Because Wikipedia is not a primary or secondary source, it is not the appropriate place for "knowledge" that appears almost nowhere else, or cannot be found in any independent, reputable, published source—this is precisely what is meant by "non-notability" in Wikipedia.
If a thing is not diminished by being shared, it is not rightly owned if it is only owned & not shared. S. Augustine
I feel some of the same concern reappearing that I felt about the original review and/or the subject tome it discussed.
... so there should be very little problem posting a negative review of a book you feel a need to warn people about.
... focus news gathering resources on tougher subjects. As for money subsidization, the lower raw costs of electronic publication are phenomenal ... so there is less need to 'subsidize' a lower overall overhead.
The OldMedia empires are legendary for controlling the information *they* want distributed. Web 2.0 and higher has gotten past the BuyOurProduct crash of 2000, and now it's people posting snips of information for the rough-house good of all.
What some people are reacting to is a semi-prohibition of "don't speak ill" of reviewed items, which is partly tangled up with problems of objectivity. Negative reviews serve a warning purpose, such as when a real expert issues a Do Not Buy alert against a brilliantly marketed but terrible tome that could prove damaging as a result of a poor topic presentation.
Free media is free
In the original review, mention was made of the concern that Google is destroying the subsidization benefits of factoids and/or "easy news". I submit that this is just an indication that the moneymaking equations for information changed 5 years ago, and the results are only now really filtering through.
OldMedia needs to create a truce. Let the Web as a whole cover factoids. Everyone likes to talk about focusing resources, so
My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
It can be read as "wiki" + "economics" or "wiki" + "nomic".
In many ways working on wikipedia is like playing a nomic. People are always talking about rules, making up new rules, talking about unwritten rules, claims rules exist when they don't... changing rules..