Well at least large scale active ones do.
Elizabeth Lane Lawley notes a backlash building on wikis
citing the activity surrounding the !(echo/atom/pie)
project's wiki and a conversation started by Phil Ringnalda. I will add my lessor known name to the list of people who were put off by the use of a wiki and have disengaged from participating.
I think Elizabeth really gets to the root of the issue when she concludes…
>I'm not yet at the point where I see wikis as adding sufficient value to any process I'm involved with to justify the installation, configuration, and learning curve for users necessary to add another tool to my social software arsenal. Like Phil, I continue to be troubled by the inherent ahistoricism built into the wiki environment; like Shelley I find the lack of social cues to tell me if I'm treading on someone's toes by changing content to be inhibiting; like Dare, I find that large-scale active wikis are often too chaotic and disorganized, making it difficult for me to find what I'm looking for. But I'm still willing to be convinced.
Me too. Elizabeth's comment in response to Sam Ruby's post defending his use of the wiki is equally as articulate and well done. Dare Obasanjo and Shelley Powers also have offered their views.
I'm not against wikis, but in the case of the !(echo/atom/pie)
project I don't think it was the best or appropriate tool – it's a lot of work for little gain. What gains are made cannot be fully understood since the history and context is lost or as the say in wiki parlance refactored.
Large scale active wikis are too chaotic and disorganized. I had time that I was willing to devote to the conversation and did initially – I have a lot to say on the matter. Alas they are absent as I quickly discovered that my time could be better spent elsewhere doing something more meaningful.
