Manual:Decidindo se usar ou não uma wiki como seu tipo de site

From mediawiki.org
This page is a translated version of the page Manual:Deciding whether to use a wiki as your website type and the translation is 25% complete.

Se você está pensando em criar um website, sua primeira decisão, mesmo antes de decidir qual software wiki usar, e decidir se deve mesmo usar uma wiki. Na maioria das vezes, se resume à decisão de acreditar no modo wiki, que é fazer com que as mudanças ruins seja simples de consertar, e não complicadas.

Uma wiki é útil em qualquer momento que você queira descentralizar a colaboração num local centralizado. Isto contrasta com sites como nytimes.com ou britannica.com, que são grandes repositórios de conteúdo que são controlados de forma centralizada por editores e webmasters que respondem às suas respectivas entidades corporativas; oy o blogosphere, que consiste de produção descentralizada de conteúdo que resulta no trabalho sendo postado em vários sites diferentes, cada um sob a autoridade do blogger individual, que é responsável por eles.

Em alguns casos pode ser vantajoso ter uma wiki como componente do seu website, e todo o resto ser não-wiki. Até mesmo a Wikimedia Foundation usa uma página de abertura não-wiki no seu portal para os wikis listados em wikimedia.org. Outros sites, como mises.org, tem a wiki como uma aba pertencente a um conjunto de abas que inclui blogs, lojas online, etc. e permitem que a barra de busca inclua resultados da wiki em buscas globais ao site todo.

Vantagens e desvantagens da Wiki

Vantagens da Wiki

  • Menos barreiras à divisão de tarefas: Allows collaboration in which each person contributes one's knowledge and effort to improving mainspace pages, as opposed to each person posting one's own content that cannot be modified by others.
  • 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]

Desvantagens da Wiki

  • Spam, vandalismo e etc: Edição aberta (se isso é o que você quer) deixa o site vulnerável para spam, vandalismo e outras edições desnecessárias This makes it necessary for someone to review the recent changes regularly and undo bad edits. See Manual:Combate ao 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