Public v private - how should a wiki be constructed

A great discussion has sprung up in EDUC 762 regarding private v public settings for an educational wiki.

How do you weight in?

While here, if you have not voted in the survey on wiki use, give it a whirl.

Do the current survey results on wiki inform your comments?

I'll kick off our discussion by responding to the following excellent question:

So I wondered why your group chose to only complete a wiki to submit to the instructor knowing that your wiki could be subjected to vandalizing even with the private access. Not suggesting our classmates but, others who might obtain access.

This is a great question and really reflects back on the philosophy of the internet, social networking and community building. My response is grounded in my personal philosophy, experience with this tool and constructivist view point of learning communities.

Personal Philosophy

I am grounded in the moral philosophy of Adam Smith. Smith, in The Theory of Moral Sentiments presents a strong case that the link between individual liberty or natural liberty and society is personal responsibility expressed through virtue. The operative agent is an impartial spectator that aligns liberty with responsibility.

So my first response, is that I have tremendous confidence in my fellows.


Experience with wiki

If you think back to the survey (over on our left) one of the major advantages of a wiki is the archive functionality. Every page and page edit is saved in history. If a "vandal" were to attack any or all pages in a public wiki, the previous page would be restored and the vandal blocked from the site.

Our EDUC 762 group midterm project was a private one, a decision that I obviously find contrary to the essence of wiki, Adam Smith, Walt Whitman and inclusiveness. Having said that, the questioner accurately points out, the wiki could still be "vandalized".

But, the process of collaboration or the process of vandalizing is, I think, important to regard. Howl, was considered obscene (a form of poetic graffitti), Dali and Pollack are examples of those attacked by the cultural establishment as juvenile and "vandals" and early rap and hip hop were considered criminal. I am not saying that this wiki rises to high art, but a defining characteristic of wiki is collaboration and inclusivement (in my view).

So, I would welcome all collaboration which, at its heart could be viewed as subversive and ultimately vandalism.

A bit like the philosophy in The Leaves of Grass . . . . could Whitman have been anticipating the wiki (Me or I or our?):

What is commonest, cheapest, nearest, easiest is Me.

or

I too am not a bit tamed, I too am untranslatable.

or

Our freedom all in thee! our very lives in thee!

Constructivist view of learning

It will not be surprising that my philosophy of constructivism is founded on notions of personal liberty and responsibility, inclusiveness and a sense that, as Whitman and Ginsberg declare - are democratic and universal. The notion of American exceptionalism that was early on described in Democracy in America by Tocqueville identified five values crucial to America's success as a democratic republic:

(1) liberty
(2) egalitarianism
(3) individualism
(4) populism and
(5) laissez-faire

Perhaps these are important not only to wiki, but to the broader discussion of community building.

Click over to Public Wiki to view the wiki under discussion. The question at the beginning of this post focused on the Owyang assessment of weaknesses of wiki. Immediately above this analysis of weakness you can see a summary of strengths/benefits/uses of wiki that might inform your analysis of this topic.

Thanks to my classmates over in EDUC 762 for prompting this excellent discussion.