--- Hugh Smith <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> Unless someone polices it, what is the value of something that may be
> tampered with.

Therein lies the rub. The major criticism of Wikipedia is that the
vandals have taken over parts of the wiki. There are several sorts of
vandals -- those who are akin to graffiti taggers (they just want to
randomly alter whatever they can and see how long it stays up); those
who have a political point of view and want all articles written to
reflect that point of view (generally, these are well-meaning people,
but their lives are filtered towards one extreme or another); those who
simply want to trash whatever it is that they don't agree with (these
are probably the worst because they go in and maliciously mess with
entries; and, lastly, those who don't know proper research techniques
and tend to post rumor, gossip or innuendo as fact (arguably, this
includes some of the less thorough conspiracy theorists). What this has
led to is Wikipedia restricting certain entries from real time editing
and setting up more groups to review entries.

The intent of Wikipedia (and most wikis) is to provide a communal venue
for writing. The tool is phenomenal in that regard because you can post
an entry and then subsequent authors can help refine the entry. If a
subsequent entry is incorrect or otherwise flawed, the software retains
prior versions and you can revert. In addition, the software allows
comparisons between document versions so that everyone can see the
changes. Wikipedia also offers a comments page to every entry so that
the content can be debated outside of the entry.

My experience with Wikipedia is pretty limited -- I did some new
entries for Records Management-related topics and established the ARMA
and ICRM entries. Wikipedia does have some fairly sophisticated tools
to protect against copyright violations. When I created the entry for
ARMA, I pulled text from the ARMA website to describe the organization.
Within days, I was chastised for a copyright violation because the tool
was able to match the text word for word against ARMA's website.

I like the idea of a wiki on the surface. Hugh, as you note, so much of
what we do is an "it depends" sort of thing. That said, I think it is
also in our best interest to better define the variables in a way that
allows more rigid definitions with proper acknowledgment of the
variables involved. Our profession is maturing. We need to create a
valid body of knowledge that we can rely upon. I feel that a proper
wiki would be able to move us along that path.

However, as we well know from our experience on the List (and my
experience goes back to 1993), we have our own experience with vandals
from time to time. If you look at the four categories of vandals I
wrote about above, I think we have had some experience here with folks
in each category.

Soooo, like any publication that has merit, a proper wiki requires some
editorial oversight and policing. The problem is that these sorts of
volunteer efforts can burn out very quickly unless there is a dedicated
core team that works at it every day.

And for something like Jesse's idea to have real merit, it is critical
that the authors have some integrity -- and that means real names and a
full biography for anyone who posts.

I'd also suggest very strongly that anyone who posts their material do
several things: 

1) Convert the presentation to a secure PDF or a graphic image file
format. That presentation is your intellectual property. Unless you are
feeling really generous, don't post a PPT file that someone who is less
scrupulous could grab and use as their own. You may even want to make
sure that the PDF file doesn't contain any text that can be grabbed. 

2) Make sure that your presentation does not violate anyone else's
copyright. (I think many of us like to insert a relevant cartoon or
image into our presentations from time to time. I know that I have a
fondness for Dilbert. However, some cartoonists are very protective of
copyright, so it probably behooves you to remove copyrighted material
unless you have permission to use that material.)

3) If your presentation deals with a present or past employer (or
client) or was produced for internal use, don't post the presentation
without their permission. Most companies are very protective about
their image and graphic standards. Most do not want internal work
product posted broadly. And most want control over where their name
appears. Since the initial iteration of this wiki belongs to Jesse, you
don't want him getting cease and desist letters -- and you don't want
to get fired or sued.

4) Be cautious about the use of vendor names and your opinions
(positive or negative) about vendors. Again, no one wants to get cease
and desist letters -- and, probably more importantly, naming vendors
will tend to create ire among unnamed vendors who will want equal time
-- and will tend to want to modify your wiki entry.

5) Protect your own copyright. Add a copyright statement to each slide
or to the handout pages (if you post a PDF).

I suppose there are other "rules" to abide by, but these are the ones
that come to mind first.

If the wiki evolves beyond a presentation warehouse, there will likely
be further cautions. I don't think that we will ever get to a place
where we have an open source (as it were) retention period database. As
you all know, from time to time we have new members of the list come
online and ask for "all the retention periods for X industry". Well, as
someone who has done retention research for hire (and who is currently
looking at proposals for that sort of work), be very careful about
posting retention periods. Certainly, the public sector can pretty much
post away with abandon because most of them are in the public domain to
begin with as public records. But those of us who have developed our
own or have used the work of others to develop our company's retention
schedules are well-advised to not post them.

Patrick Cunningham, CRM

Patrick Cunningham, CRM
[log in to unmask]

"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759

List archives at http://lists.ufl.edu/archives/recmgmt-l.html
Contact [log in to unmask] for assistance