Wikis are one of those internet phenomena that are confusing, intruiging, powerful, and often misunderstood. Many users and even some programmers of wiki software have missed the point completely, and from what I've observed in scholarly discussions on the subject, most teachers "using wikis in the classroom" are so far off the mark that I am at a loss whether to laugh or cry. When I read these reports, it's like reading about how someone completely and utterly failed to use their shiny new Ferrari to properly tow a horse trailer. What I'm saying is that people are so confused and misinformed about wikis, both practically and philosophically, that they are abusing the term to the point of doing a major disservice to the true wiki community. To address this wretched situation, I have decided to come down from my mountain and make some observations that hopefully a few of the brighter people here will understand.

First of all, let us clear up some language issues that are partly to blame for the confusion. Note that, again, even some programmers and proponents of Wiki misunderstand it totally; therefore, you may notice that some of my definitions may disagree with even some "official" ones. Ignore the "official" ones, because any definitions that differ from mine are, in a word, unenlightened. First, there is a difference we should observe when referring to a wiki software, such as MediaWiki, Openwiki and the like. When referring to the program as such, we should always refer to its proper title, and not simply "wiki." We observe this convention when we refer to say, word processors--we say, "Open Microsoft Word," not "Open word processor." To do so is to conflate the term for the phylum with the species.

Next, we should not bandy the term "wiki" about carelessly. Just because some users or all users can edit parts of a website does not make it a wiki. Just because a site runs wiki software does not make it a wiki. For example, let us say I set up a Drupal site and posted the admin login and password on the frontpage so that anyone could make whatever changes he or she wanted. This does not result in a wiki. Neither does installing a wiki software engine like Mediawiki. For the project to really be called a "wiki," it must go beyond mere lack of constraints and have a certain, almost accidental, purpose. Later I will talk about how some "wikis" try to fool people into thinking they are wikis.

Let me just concede now that I only recognize the existence of a single wiki worthy of the name, and that is Wikipedia. Again, I do not make such a claim based on the excellence of the software, or even the excellence of the community it supports. Rather, I hold that the unique function Wikipedia is beginning to play on our planet, particularly among those intelligent enough to take advantage of it, is to further a very important intellectual and spiritual mission; namely, a slowly evolving consciousness. This consciousness could have many names; some might refer to it as "Geist," yet I would rather leave behind those trappings and simply call it "Wiki Consciousness," or Wiki for short, since the latter is implied.

Wikipedia happens to be built like a traditional encyclopedia, which, unfortunately, makes people think of it in those terms with those connotations. However, Wikipedia is much more than a digital encyclopedia which anyone can edit. What it is is a sort of grand Enlightenment project, in which thousands and thousands of individuals strive to share or contest knowledge. Now, thanks to no shortage of arcane French philosphers and their black-garbed armies of flatterers, we tend now to laugh at the idea that "knowledge" can be permanent; that is, the Truth. For example, it is hopeless to seek Truth in the Brittanica, because there are political motivations hiding behind the definitions; indeed, one argument made by so many Post-Modernists is that the "objective" is merely "deceptive," meaning that the obvious subjective elements have been intentionally obscured for the purpose of providing a black and white picture of reality. A body of knowledge is always already an "ideology," and lurking somewhere in that idea is always the idea that, if you tried hard enough, you could disbelieve what your senses tell you and whisk off to Nirvana. Given the choice between nihilism, pessimism, or fatalism, I prefer (D) none of the above. The reports of Derrida's death are highly empirical.

Well, the Wiki manages to profit from the Enlightenment project while not making the mistake of presenting itself as an unquestioned authority or its content as "fixed." Indeed, each entry in the Wikipedia is always already a site of ideological struggle. Now, if we could backup and see all of those tiny struggles taking place all over the Wikipedia, we would have a model of the dialectic. If we model the term on Hegel's, we have Thesis, Antithesis, and Synthesis taking place. Again, we could play with terms and concepts here, but such discussions are cumbersome, and the important thing is to see that what is special about Wikipedia--it is not a few editors or experts debating with each other over terms. Rather, it is all those millions of tiny refinements, refutations, and explications offered by anyone who cares to participate in the site.

In the early stages of Wikipedia, it was common to hear someone spew the vitriol, "Who could trust what you read there? I trust only the products of a well-paid publisher." Much like the devoted believer who say, "How can I believe what hasn't been approved by the Pope?" the same type mew about how they can't trust something without the approval of a profiteer. The wise person is always a fool to throngs more foolish still. However, we are already seeing more and more links to Wikipedia used as official sources in online documents and articles. People are slowly starting to realize that an entry in the Wikipedia is a better authority than a traditional encyclopedia or, for that matter, any traditional reference, precisely because it reduces the status of authors. Where authors recede, knowledge comes forward. Wiki is the single most important development in knowledge-production or "making meaning" the world has ever known.

The reasons why so many people balked at the Enlightenment Project is that it tended to present a rather silly picture of Truth. Just make enough small observations, collect enough facts, and then more facts, and eventually this will all come together and be the Truth. What was particularly galling to humanities scholars was the low priority "non scientific knowledge" was awarded in this movement; no one feels comfortable filling in for the Scholastics in the brave new world. Perhaps there was knowledge at the individual or local level that was being lost or rendered inaccessible by the scientific mentality.

Wiki manages to sidestep these problems. Wiki does not find its authority in the credentials of authors; indeed, the entries quickly become autonomous from individual authors and take on their own existence. They are always developing as new collections of indviduals aim to refine or destroy them; but each edit only pushes upwards. Gradually the entries connect with one another and thus bring together communities of wiki authors. Entries show up in online articles, forums--soon they will start showing up in printed books (but no matter). Those familiar with the free software model will recognize that the same features apply to Wiki--new authors do not compete with Wiki; they merely add to its richness. Eventually, Wiki will be as well-integrated as thought itself.

Of important note here are the sedimentary layers that form underneath "hot" or politically charged entries. Often enough, someone will attempt to vandalize or take over these entries for a political agenda. The community will respond to these attacks soon enough, but what I'm getting at is that the sedimentary layers themselves must be considered if one is to arrive at a good understanding of the entry. Unlike Encyclopedia Brittanica, where such dissension is either ignored or treated callously, Wikipedia incorporates it into itself and thus becomes an even better authority.

Wiki is still at a very early state. Soon it will outgrow its narrow confines and demand more space and food (much like the famous plant in Little Shop of Horrors). Still, much like the plant, Wiki does not kill those it eats, but merely adds them to itself. The "horror," if there are still those who do not find greater horror in the isolation of individuality, will come only from those who place such petty concerns as profit and fame over the greater good of knowledge and Truth. In my mind, profit motives and business imperatives have taken over from religion--mere claptrap and nonsense that seek to distract or declaw true philosophical inquiry.

Wiki is about daring, sharing, and caring. It calls to individuals, but their every contribution solidifies Wiki's autonomy from political or theoretical dogma. Even the crudest vandal does nothing but instruct and add to the authority of each Wiki entry. Wiki is the dialectic and a physical embodiment of Hegel's Geist.