Stewart Mader, Wiki Evangelist

The second challenge to social media/enterprise 2.0 adoption that Sandy Kemsley cites has to do with the names of these tools, and the notion that we:

...feel a bit silly stating that we blog (as opposed to maintaining a reverse chronological online journal), or use a wiki (as opposed to a collaborative editing workspace). Seriously now, "blog"? "Wiki"? "Mashup"? Do we really expect stuffy enterprise executives to get past the names and see how the technology can impact their organization?

I don't think the names are all that silly. There's nothing exciting about "reverse chronological online journal" and in fact it sounds like something that a committee of stuffy people came up with.

Unique names provide an opening to ask "What is it?". If I heard "collaborative editing workspace" that's too generic for me to know it's a new kind of tool, but if I heard "wiki" I'd ask, "What's that?" There's the opening for someone to explain it.

2 Comment(s)

Good point!
Any suggestions on using names derived from Wikipedia?
- such as Grundfospedia (my comapany = Grundfos) or BDCpedia (BDC = Business Development Center in my company)
Would you recommend us against using these terms and instead use Grundfos Wiki and BDC wiki?

Thanks

Ole Kristensen

By Ole Kristensen at April 6, 2008 3:15 AM

Ole,
It depends on the purpose of the wiki. If it's going to be an organizational encyclopedia/knowledge base then using "pedia" is fine. On the other hand, if it's going to be used for other things like project management, meeting, documentation, etc. then "pedia" is too limiting and I'd go for "Wiki" instead.

Cheers,
Stewart

By Stewart Mader at April 8, 2008 9:28 AM

Post a comment





Remember personal info?

Type the characters you see in the picture above.