Wiki’s Are Arguments

A wiki, certainly the one that started it all, Wikipedia, is an argument. Disagree with me? Let’s argue about it. Seriously though, a Wiki is an argument based system. Not the shouting until you’re red in the face angry argument (though for some it can be), but a way of communicating through “debate”. It’s amazing because never before in mankind’s history have we been able to debate topics, subjects, issues etc in such a way that is so accessible.

I can go an make an entry on a topic right now. You can then come in and change my entry. Someone else can change it again. There are lots of errors on Wikipedia. Through a constructive argumentative process, we get closer to accuracy on any given topic or issue.

Wiki’s have grown in popularity for business and organizational use. In this use-case, wiki’s are often purely “knowledge centres” where the organization loads knowledge with various publishing rights, or no specific “rights” for publishing at all – they are then less an argument.

Wikipedia, and any wiki that is publicly collaborative is essentially an argument. See Wikipedia’s definition of an argument. is it correct to your idea of an argument?

So what’s the point? The example of Wikipedia as an argument-based Social Media application is just another example of how there are different tools for different purposes. In this case, Wikipedia is similar to the early days of book printing, when all of a sudden scholars from other regions could engage in debate with others – idea creation and is a logical process to defining whatever it is your defining.

Twitter is the “water-cooler” of the Social Web, while Digg and Mixx are popularity-based news systems. Blogs are in a sense a “positioning-statement of opinion” where debate is limited to the comment section. Understanding the context of the tool will help in understanding what tools should be used for your engagement.

Care to argue?

(Author: Giles Crouch, Managing Partner)

@webconomist on Twitter