Where Do Forums and Blogs End, and Wikis Begin?

Share via Twitter Share via Facebook Share via Linkedin Share via Reddit

A few weeks ago, I mentioned offhandedly that Jon Udell should be given credit for being prescient in his recognition that 2005 would be a landmark year for wikis, and every day I’m more convinced that that’s true. Whether it’s actual websites being transitioned to wiki infrastructures (see here or here) or wikis breaking ground in non-technology disciplines (see here, here or here), it seems increasingly clear that wikis will be playing an important new role in IT infrastructures of all shapes and sizes, and will be bent towards completely unforeseen use cases.

While discussing this trend at JavaOne last year week, one vendor asked at whose expense this growth is likely to come. Great question, and the qualified answer from me is content management vendors. I say qualified because while there’s overlap between wikis and more traditional content management tools, there’s considerable differentiation as well. Some low end tasks that have typically been alloted to CM tools will undoubtedly go the way of wikis as we go forward, but there are plenty of arenas (workflow, the ability to management multiple document types, etc) where wikis have little to no functionality. So the Documentums, FileNets, IBMs, and Vignettes of the world have little to fear at this point.

But in looking at the differentiation between content management tools and wikis today, I can’t help but think there’s an opportunity for someone to make the handoff from the relative chaos of unstructured sources such as blogs and user forums to wikis clean and dead simple. A primitive workflow, in other words.

Anyone who’s ever cruised user forums or blogs more or less blindly, lacking the context of a larger discussion, knows the difficulty I’m talking about. Say you have a problem with SAMBA, as I have today, and you search a few forums for solutions to the problem. In a forum setting, you might have 15 pages of responses, many or most of which are irrelevant to your question. There’s a nugget – maybe more than one – of important information in there, but because forums are structured chronologically just as blogs are, you have no way of navigating directly to that data. It’s almost as if forums – and to a lesser extent blogs – should serve as the staging area for a certain class wiki entries, where multiple different approaches and strategies are tried and discarded, tried and discarded, until a solution is discovered and graduated to its final (but still dynamic) home, a wiki entry.

For an example from the blogging world, I need look no further than my own HowTo in getting into blogs, which began life as a blog entry here but was pushed over towards our wiki here a.) so that it could be persisted from amongst buried entries, and b.) anyone that was so inclined could refine it. Alex King and I chatted on this same topic a few weeks ago at lunch, going back and forth on the difficulty of having longer lived pieces of content that are surfaced above the shackles of chronology (he’s got a nifty popularity widget approach to the problem).

This process of “graduating content” is conducted informally in many settings right now – just check out this post from the Gentoo Wiki which draws heavily on a post from the forums. The problem to me then is not that a migration from one medium to the other cannot occur: obviously it can. No, the issue is instead when to make that jump, how the content gets from point A to point B, how to indicate explicitly the relation between two different types of content dealing with the same problem, and how to do all of this in as automated a fashion as possible.

Put differently, the problem as I see it is twofold:

  1. Blogs and forums are fundamentally about persisting rather than refining information; creating data, not deleting it
  2. Because of this, it can be increasingly difficult to navigate the maze of valuable versus irrelevant data

To be sure I’m clear on this, what I’m not saying here is that wikis are a replacement for either blogs or forums; I believe that each has their place in a non-hierarchical collaborative environment. What I am looking for is a better way for one to feed the other, just as one might feed a blog with offline authoring tools. Obviously I don’t have it all worked out, but a solution to this problem would make my life a hell of a lot simpler, and maybe yours too.


  1. [Note: I moved this comment from Alex from another thread, where I think it was put by mistake. If I'm wrong, Alex, just let me know and I'll move it back.]

    I've been doing a lot of thinking about how Wikis and Blogs can be married, and I'm not convinced that it's impossible.

    With Swik (http://swik.net), I took an initial stab at it, if you look at how the left topics are structured, they pretty much follow the RSS specification, but the description part can be as long as needed ala a wiki page.

    That way you could have a lot of entries about Configuring SAMBA under a topic that never moved and could summarize and highlight.

    This system is not without problems, but I think with tweaking and some restructuring we'll be able to marry the two concepts.

  2. It is interesting to see you talking about driving sites through a Wiki as or in place of a CMS, this is exactly what we’ve been doing here for two years now. The benefit of promoting content from internal documents to public view has been limited, but we have seen a benefit in that all of our internal users are trained on the tools to create pages for the external site.

  3. Slightly off-topic from what you discussed above, but readers who enjoyed your post may also enjoy these two Clay Shirky essays that I recently read. They get into some of the usage model differences between some of the types of social software you mentioned.

    A Group Is Its Own Worst Enemy http://www.shirky.com/writings/group_enemy.html

    Group as User: Flaming and the Design of Social Software http://www.shirky.com/writings/group_user.html

  4. Andy: thanks much for the comments, and would love to hear more from you on that score. any chance that you have time to chat this week?

    Alex: will have more on Swik shortly, but personally, i'm not looking for a marriage – i want them to remain separate. i'm instead looking for the ability to loosely couple them as independent and separate entities. i think blogs/forums serve a very important and necessary function as expressions of iteration, while wikis as a rule should be more staticly defined (though living documents themselves). Swik, however, serves an interesting use case and is a cool concept.

    Bill: thanks for the links – I don't agree with all of Shirky's comments, but as always they are thought provoking and very well thought out.

Comments are closed.