Collective Authority

Wiki is a radically democratic form of online authorship wherein every user has equal power to add to, modify, censor, vandalize or delete any article. Of course, since every user has access to the entire version history, this includes the power to restore the document's text to any previous state. Presumably, the only power differential lies in the varying proficiencies of authors in using all the features of Wiki software.

A former Editor-in-Chief of Encyclopedia Britannica offers some good criticism of the Wiki approach, at least when applied to encyclopedia authoring as in Wikipedia. These include questioning the basic tenets of Wiki:

1. Anyone, irrespective of expertise in or even familiarity with the topic, can submit an article and it will be published.

2. Anyone, irrespective of expertise in or even familiarity with the topic, can edit that article, and the modifications will stand until further modified.

Then comes the crucial and entirely faith-based step:

3. Some unspecified quasi-Darwinian process will assure that those writings and editings by contributors of greatest expertise will survive; articles will eventually reach a steady state that corresponds to the highest degree of accuracy.

He goes on to highlight the specific case of a Wikipedia article on the life of Alexander Hamilton, remarking that (in his editorial opinion) the quality of the article had actually diminished over time rather than evolved. Looking at the document history, early versions naturally had only a few authors; therefore the writing was factually and stylistically consistent (more or less). In later versions, many more authors made changes which tended to fragment the once-cohesive article. Of course, since receiving much public scrutiny as a result of this critique you'll find the article now in a much-improved state. Evolution in action, as usual.

Still, despite this one biased opinion of Wikipedia, which is in general an excellent information resource, there are serious drawbacks of a free-reign system. Here are my top 3 suggested features missing from Wiki. Rather than being a critique of the radical-democratic way, I think that these 3 are in harmony with the Wiki Way and can only serve to strengthen it.

1. Moderated Reputation. Give everyone power to rank everyone else on writing and editing abilities in general, and subject matter in specific.

2. Meta-Moderated Reputation. Give everyone power to rank everyone else on ranking ability.

3. Separation of Data & Presentation. Synonymous with separating Form from Content, this suggestion explicitly acknowledges the two-fold role of a Wiki:

• facilitating a group thought and group writing process for identifying useful and relevant information on given topic; and
  
• presenting the results of that labor as a human-readable document.

Currently there is a discussion page for every Wiki page which inadequately addresses this issue. Rather than being simply another group-edited document, this discussion page should be fully blown groupware for brainstorming, decision-making, and prioritizing edits/additions. A simple priority queue of discussion threads would suffice. My feeling is that the group thought process which precedes group authoring is the invisible "soul" of a Wiki. By creating a concrete form for that indwelling soul, we may more easily "step down" its wisdom into words.

Suggestions 1 and 2 are two more powers to give every Wiki author an equal share of. Slashdot already implements these. Combined with suggestion 3, these rankings plug in two critical components of a cognitive-collective: self-awareness (e.g. of skillsets) and collective learning (via adaptive weighting of "authority" based on the rankings).

Here I am imagining a form of non-linear online conversation for brainstorming and collective thought which optimizes the work flow of participants. It is analogous to the non-linear conversation in our own subconscious mind which elevates some ideas, perceptions and decisions to the level of conscious thought while others remain below that threshold -- irrelevant, forgotten or evolving until fit for service.