Inner gang? Mini empires? Am I talking about the online encyclopedia, Wikipedia? Why yes, yes I am. I’m reading “Who Writes Wikipedia” which is a study on how Wikipedia is edited and maintained. Is it really “a small group of colleagues working together toward a common goal?” A small group wrote that much content in about four years?
I’m interested in this subject because Wikipedia is a wonderful reference site full of content that usually is accurate and rings of authority even though it is maintained with an all-volunteer content creation and editing team. Seeing it and liking the results, I wonder how a wiki could be used in a similar fashion to build technical documentation sites that are user-built and maintained while offering the best, most thorough, most accurate technical information about a certain product or technical subject. Could we really get as valuable a reference for product doc by having a “small group of colleagues working together towards a common goal” — a goal of an excellent set of product documentation online?
Outsiders provide content, insiders clean it up
Come to find out, according to the article, over half of the edits are done by less than 1% of the users, about 500 people are considered to be the inner circle of editors, building consistency in wording and categories while fixing typos and editing content where needed to build more quality into each entry. The most active group of about 1400 people have done nearly three-quarters of all the edits. These statistics and claims are made by Jimbo Wales, the face of Wikipedia. Now, the article’s author, Aaron Swartz, tracks a few more nuances of this claim by studying random wikipedia entries, such as the one for Alan Alda. And here is his conclusion based on his study:
When you put it all together, the story become clear: an outsider makes one edit to add a chunk of information, then insiders make several edits tweaking and reformatting it. In addition, insiders rack up thousands of edits doing things like changing the name of a category across the entire site — the kind of thing only insiders deeply care about. As a result, insiders account for the vast majority of the edits. But it’s the outsiders who provide nearly all of the content.
Wiki for tech doc
Now, I’d like to try to translate this to what might work well for a wiki geared toward product documentation. You’d need a core set of very knowledgeable content providers, like a team of experienced users of the product. Those users would contribute a core body of knowledge to the wiki, and hopefully choose to first document the items that are either most popular tasks or the most-referenced information or the toughest concepts to grasp. Most likely that would be the subject matter they’d be most familiar with anyway.
But is there vandalism?
It also appears that my wiki graffiti concerns are likely unfounded… the article says, “A tiny handful — probably around 5 out of nearly 400 — were “vandalism”: confused or malicious people adding things that simply didn’t fit, followed by someone undoing their change. That’s such a small percentage, just over a tenth of a percent, that it seems for the most part there are few writers with malicious intent in their edits.
Real wiki writers tell their experiences
Reading through the comments, I also appreciated the “user experiences” from people who are actively editing Wikipedia content. One commenter notes that he “went crazy” adding content in areas where he had knowledge but found that once his knowledge limitations were surpassed or the well was dry, he went into a maintenance mode. With a “burst of new knowledge” he’d add more content to those areas but found those to be few and far between. I think that with product documentation a similar ebb and flow would occur — knowledge or experience with a relatively new feature would cause activity on certain articles but then maintenance would occur again.
How do you get enough contributors?
Probably the major limiter for a product documentation wiki that’s maintained by users is that the user base would have to be significantly large in order to draw enough content providers. If 500 people maintain Wikipedia, you’d probably need 50,000 users to get 500 committed people to provide content (or would you actually need half a million?).
How do you ensure consistency?
Wikipedia has a basic information model to follow that most people are familiar with, also — the encyclopedia and it’s article-like writing style and the content you expect to see in an encyclopedia is well known and the style is easily copied by any writer. Product reference would need some excellent modeling to follow, which is why I lurve the idea of a DITA wiki — structured content models that 500 people could follow consistently, writing concept topics, tasks, or reference topics on a regular basis.
I’m warming up to the wiki
We can learn a lot from Wikipedia’s success and I plan to continue to track their progress as it evolves and more policy is put in place. Perhaps the wiki has potential as a great product doc format.
What do you think as a writer? Would you be willing to write and maintain content for product doc in a wiki? What do you think as a product user? Would you want to read and would you trust the content provided by thousands of fellow product users? Maybe I should experiment by combining the two groups — user and writer — and start a FrameMaker wiki. Surely the FrameMaker user base just isn’t large enough to generate the content it would need to succeed. What do you think?