Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Clive Long How is the content of a wiki "controlled" or at least verified for being legal, decent, honest and truthful? I guess it isn't. And how do I decide if a non-offensive post is accurate or authoritative? |
Yep, totally correct. No checking, no authority, no control. And it's one of the most authoritative sources of information on the Web... Makes you think, really. Although it's a fair bet that the most authoritative articles are the ones which have been most-edited, even the occasional ones are usually reliable.
Think of it as open-source information....
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Clive Long David ... your company having a public wiki seems very brave. Isn't the wiki target for all sorts of weirdos and disgruntled employees? What benefit does the company feel it derives from offering this? |
I said intranet, not internet! Access is firewall-controlled, of course.
But we won the
world's most prestigious Intranet award this year, so we must be doing something right. ( :smug icon: )
Also, there's built-in version control, so you can always revert changes out.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Clive Long I also feel some kind of editorial control can improve the quality of what is published - although the message will also be strongly controlled. |
Swings and roundabouts. For our purposes, we found the extra layer of control meant that people wouldn't create or edit content, it's just too much hassle. On the other hand, if you see something wrong in Wikipedia, you can just click the button to change it...
I'm a big fan of Wiki, but perhaps you gathered that
