Wiki Lore and Politics

Before reading Martin and Dusenberry's piece "Wiki Lore and Politics", I knew much of the theory behind wiki's, but had never actually participated or collaborated on one. I can see how wiki's can be very useful, obviously wikipedia has been doing quite well. I agree with some of Martin and Dusenberrry's drawbacks, most effectively the fact that ones writing essentially does not remain their own writing. One of Martin's students said "“Although there are many benefits to the wiki, I see one drawback: No one's thoughts and entries stay untouched by others. The purity of an initial entry can be completely disturbed by another's desire to make changes. But this can also be a good thing.” I can see how that would be something very bad. As writers, we have our own thoughts, our own way of expressing the flow of those thoughts, and there will always be a pride in those thoughts and the words we choose to express them. When you put those thoughts down in an environment where other people can insert their own take on those thoughts, it's natural to get defensive, paranoid, and generally be uncomfortable with the situation.

The wiki as a community for similar thoughts and ideas is a definite positive. I almost feel like a wiki would work better through the anonymity of the general Internet rather than in a classroom setting where the paranoia can lead to finger pointing and friction between people IRL. Competition is another roadblock that Dusenberry brought up, and I see how that would be more of the case in a situation where students are interacting with each other rather than through a more discreet medium. It's easier to be competitive when you can place a face and name to the people you feel you are competing against.