Wikis That Work?, Is it the concept or the implementation that is a problem? Options

[dogbiscuit]

It occurred to me that a recent interest of mine had got me using a wiki, and that the experience was satisfying and the results of it were useful.

I do a lot of walking and cycling and so have an interest in maps. Having got a GPS navigation device, I was interested in getting maps (though maps on the smaller devices aren't very usable for actual navigation) and came across www.OpenStreetMap.org which is a great big open source map of the world based on a Wiki approach, albeit with specialised mapping software.

To my surprise, it is accurate and pretty complete for the areas I am interested in, though missing just enough that it has suckered me in to contributing. Of course, in the UK we have some of the best maps in the world with the publicly funded Ordnance Survey, so it is interesting to have something where I can measure the results of a public work against a professional source - even more so because the OS released some of their mapping into the public domain so people have been able to link the two together.

Thoughts are that this is a Wiki with a pretty clear set of goals, the only conflict seems to be cyclists vs walkers vs motorists where there is still a little bit of clarity required. The other noticeable thing is that the administration of the project is virtually invisible. I've been poking around for a couple of months and simply have not seen anything of what might appear to be management - the Wiki is just magically there and it works. The mailing lists are the model of civility (in the real sense of the word!). People and companies are producing tests and checks to validate the quality of the mapping, and even over a couple of months you can see the end product getting more refined.

Has anyone else any involvements in wikis that really work and are producing measurable quality output? What are their defining characteristics?

[GlassBeadGame]

It occurred to me that a recent interest of mine had got me using a wiki, and that the experience was satisfying and the results of it were useful.

I do a lot of walking and cycling and so have an interest in maps. Having got a GPS navigation device, I was interested in getting maps (though maps on the smaller devices aren't very usable for actual navigation) and came across www.OpenStreetMap.org which is a great big open source map of the world based on a Wiki approach, albeit with specialised mapping software.

To my surprise, it is accurate and pretty complete for the areas I am interested in, though missing just enough that it has suckered me in to contributing. Of course, in the UK we have some of the best maps in the world with the publicly funded Ordnance Survey, so it is interesting to have something where I can measure the results of a public work against a professional source - even more so because the OS released some of their mapping into the public domain so people have been able to link the two together.

Thoughts are that this is a Wiki with a pretty clear set of goals, the only conflict seems to be cyclists vs walkers vs motorists where there is still a little bit of clarity required. The other noticeable thing is that the administration of the project is virtually invisible. I've been poking around for a couple of months and simply have not seen anything of what might appear to be management - the Wiki is just magically there and it works. The mailing lists are the model of civility (in the real sense of the word!). People and companies are producing tests and checks to validate the quality of the mapping, and even over a couple of months you can see the end product getting more refined.

Has anyone else any involvements in wikis that really work and are producing measurable quality output? What are their defining characteristics?

The "no apparent management" is interesting. This must indicate a proprietor who deals with any kind disruption with unilateral dispatch without discussion or even acknowledging any problem. This cuts off any opportunities for the "community" to get all meta on his/her ass. Given the narrow focus and clear goals there might be very little conflict to suppress in any event.

You might have made the best possible counter to my belief of "no good wikis."