Manual:Decidiendo si usar una wiki como tu tipo de sitio

From mediawiki.org
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This page is a translated version of the page Manual:Deciding whether to use a wiki as your website type and the translation is 20% complete.
Outdated translations are marked like this.
Other languages:
Deutsch • ‎English • ‎Türkçe • ‎español • ‎français • ‎中文 • ‎日本語 • ‎한국어

Si estás pensando en crear un sitio web, tu primera decisión, incluso antes de pensar en qué software wiki usar, es decidir si efectivamente usar una wiki. Para la mayoría, la decisión se reduce a si uno mismo cree en el estilo wiki, que consiste en lograr que los errores sean fáciles de corregir en lugar de difíciles de hacer.

Una wiki es útil siempre que quieras tener colaboración descentralizada, centrada en un lugar. Esto contrasta con sitios web tales como nytimes.com o britannica.com, que son grandes repositorios centrales de contenido, controlados centralmente por editores y administradores que rinden cuentas a sus respectivas entidades corporativas; o con la blogósfera, que consiste en la producción descentralizada de contenido que resulta en trabajo publicado en muchos diferentes sitios web, cada uno de los cuales está bajo la autoridad de, y es la responsabilidad de, el bloguero individual.

En algunos casos, puede ser conveniente tener una wiki como un componente del sitio web y dejar que el resto no lo sea. Incluso Special:MyLanguage/Differences between Wikipedia, Wikimedia, MediaWiki, and wiki emplea una portada no-wiki para su portal a las wikis listadas en wikimedia.org. Otros sitios web, como mises.org, tienen la wiki como una etiqueta más de una cinta que puede incluír blogs, tiendas online, etc, a la vez que permiten a la barra de búsqueda incluír resultados de la wiki entre los resultados para búsquedas en todo el sitio.

Ventajas y desventajas de las wikis

Ventajas de las wikis

  • Menos impedimentos a la división de tareas: Permite una colaboración en la que cada persona contribuye con su conocimiento y esfuerzo para mejorar los contenidos, en vez de contenidos personales que no pueden ser modificados por otros.
  • Fast action on ideas community members come up with: Wikis allow decentralized action, in which people can make decisions that are reviewed afterward, rather than seeking permission first from a central decision-maker, who can be a bottleneck. A psychological component may be involved: users may be more likely to fix a problem if they get the relatively immediate gratification of seeing the results of their edit, than if they have to go through a process of reporting the problem to a central authority who may not act in a timely manner.
  • Collaborative quality control: If an editor makes a mistake on a wiki, someone else can correct it so that it does not continue being shown to readers and reflecting badly on the organization. If the administrator of a non-wiki website makes a mistake, then it may go uncorrected and reflect badly on the organization.
  • Searchable content: Allows easy retrieval of archived information (as opposed to, say, Facebook, which buries old posts and threads in non-searchable archives).
  • Charming quirkiness: Some readers enjoy the slightly chaotic nature of wikis, in which the decentralized nature of the production process is sometimes exposed to view. Sue Gardner viewed it as a feature rather than a bug that "Wikipedia has always been kind of a homely, awkward, handcrafted-looking site."[1]

Disadvantages of wikis

  • Spam, vandalism, etc.: Open editing (if that is what you use) renders the site vulnerable to spam, vandalism, and other unhelpful edits. This makes it necessary for someone to review the recent changes regularly and undo bad edits. See Manual:Combating spam .
  • Bad edits may be at least briefly visible: Even with people reviewing recent changes, there will be a lag between when bad edits are made and when they are reversed.
  • Organizational reputation may suffer from users' actions: The wiki content may be deemed to reflect on the organization as a whole rather than on the editors who made the changes. This is different from the state of affairs that exists when, say, each user owns and administers a personal website which has one owner who is responsible for all content.
  • New content may be presented in hard-to-read formats: Readers looking for the newest content have the options of going to (1) a recent changes page, which may not present the new content in a format that is easy for them to quickly peruse and grasp the meaning of (since it's presented as diffs); (2) a list of new pages, some of which may not be high-quality because they are still under construction and/or haven't been reviewed yet; or (3) a list of pages that have been reviewed for quality (such as Wikipedia's did you know), whose curation may require extra labor.
  • Diffusion of responsibility: A wiki may remain empty or unattended as everyone is expecting others to make the necessary changes.
  • Software that is relatively difficult to administer: There are many blog installations and comparatively few wiki installations. Therefore, a higher priority has been placed on making it easy to administer blogging software than has been the case with wiki software.
  • Wikis primarily focus on text and media. For managing data in a wiki, several approaches exist via extensions. See Manual:Managing data in MediaWiki .

Ways in which wikis are similar to other sites

See also

References

  1. Garber, Megan (12 July 2012). On the Ugliness of Wikipedia. The Atlantic.

External links