Wiki Facilitation Concept Development

This topic contains my working notes on the idea of WikiFacilitation which I first came up with in November, 2004. For a more formal presentation of the idea, visit Skyloom.WikiFacilitation or Know.WikiFacilitation (which presents the idea as a pattern. -- LynnwoodBrown

Wiki topics are like a room.

• See MeatBall:WikiAsRoom
• An open space inwhich different events can take place.
• The key point here is that wikis do not presuppose or impose a structure to the discussion as do bullitin boards, emails, and other types of SocialSoftware.
• Develop metaphor of wiki-topic-as-room:
  • Different tools/structures are like different displays on walls and/or different group processes going on in room. Picture a room with summary information about discussion on one wall, various polls and brainstorming lists on another wall, open discussion in back of room.
  • A web is similar to a network of rooms (topics).

Wiki as quintessential SocialSoftware

• Epitomy of "tools [that] depend more on social convention than on software features to facilitate interaction and collaboration." From Wikipedia:Social_Software .
• This is source of both the promise and frustration of wikis.
• Proposition: the less software constrains the discussion, the stronger the social conventions required to have the computer-mediated discussion be as satisfactory as F2F interactions.
• Links:
  • MeatBall:SocialSoftware
  • Wikipedia:Collective_intelligence
  • http://james.seng.cc/wiki/wiki.cgi?Social_Software
  • http://www.corante.com/many/
  • social_software_alliance_wiki

Wiki discussions should mirror core aspects of f2f conversations

• Degree to which they mirror real world conversations is major factor in satisfaction.
• Conversations are an event - bounded in time and space. The space is the wiki topic - it's structure and relations to other topics. The time factor is the tricky part because on-line exchanges exist in time differently than f2f interactions. (See further discussion below.)
• F2F conversations have inherent structure that determine participants satisfaction of involvement. Examples of this include:
  • The "Diamond of Participitory Decision Making" in Facilitator's Guide to Participatory Decision-Making
  • ICA's Art of Focused Conversation
• These structures in time are a major part of our experience and satisfaction in any kind of discussion.

Wikis structurally favor divergence over convergence aspect of conversation

• The differences between F2F and wiki conversations mostly result in wiki favoring divergent tendencies.
• Maybe this is restating some of what's above in different way.
• This is major factor of why wiki facilitation is needed.
• Reaching agreement or closure (as distinct from exploring or debate-for-debate-sake) is only one facet of discussion but an important one for long term satisfaction with medium.

Defining Wiki facilitation

• Wiki facilitation is using various topic structures and tools to consciously structure a discussion in time in order to achieve a specific group-approved outcome. Some elements of this include:
  • Defining a clear purpose or intention for a wiki topic.
  • Anticipate phases of the discussion needed to fulfill the purpose.
  • Structure the topic to fulfill each phase and restructure as move to next phase.
  • Continuous refactoring to distinguish different tracks of discussion and different modes.
  • Maintain "boundaries" of discussion.
    • Isolate "off-topic" threads (as defined by topic purpose)
    • Isolate "out-of-sync" threads - not relevant to current phase of conversation.

Wiki facilitation as bridge between modes of discourse

• Mapping Hypertext makes distinction between:
  1. Relatively Stable Discourse - presentation
  2. Disputed Discourse - argumentation, discussion
  3. Experimental Discourse - formal scientific empiricism
• In wikis, this distinction is (over)simplified to document mode versus thread mode.
• Even then, wiki tend to mix these together.
• A key function of wiki facilitation is separating out these different modes and then integrating them. Hense the appeal of Wikipedia's discussion tab.

Wiki facilitation as more "robust" form of refactoring

• Facilitation in all forms implies empowerment of facilitator to manage a discussion. I normally phrase this as saying the facilitator is empowered to help the group fulfill its stated goals.
• The legitimacy of the facilitator is based on the group's agreement about it's goal and acknowledgement of the facilitator's role in furthering this.
• Revisit Facilitator's Guide regarding role of facilitator. They do this by defining certain functions the facilitator serves to counteract certain tentancies of groups. I could do this in relation to wiki facilitor's functions to counter disfunctional wiki tendencies.
• This thread specifically speaks to questions about power in wiki discussions. At first appears contrary to egalitarian wiki-ethic, but I don't think this is really the case.
• Also in this thread is the matter of facilitator commitment and responsibility .

Open questions

• I'm using "conversation" to mean different things. Need different terminology. Or more refined. For example a group decision making event is actually a series of conversations .
  • A topic, like a room, can contain multiple conversations.

Comparison of f2f and wiki facilitation

For now, I'm going to do this as list. Later may redo as chart.

Face-to-face

• Is naturally bounded in time. Inherently synchronous
  • Inherent contraint to having multiple conversations. Only one person can talk at a time.
• Relatively minor turn-over in participants. People may come late or leave early and this can be challenge for facilitation but not a major problem.
• Primarily verbal (and non-verbal).
• Incorporates many non-verbal channels.

Wiki

• No inherent time frame - asynchronous.
  • Two aspects of this. People may provide input to discussion at different times AND different participants may be at totally different places (or phases) of a discussion. For example: a group may reach consensus on a particular point but then someone may enter discussion later who in not in agreement on that point.
  • Limited contraints on how many people can talk at same time.
• Primarily written (and possibly graphic).
• Incorporates very little non-verbal channels.

Brainstorming aspects of wiki facilitation

Defining the conversation

• How to frame a topic
• Patterns for effective naming of topics
• Creating boundaries to conversation
  • In time
  • In space
• Distinguishing different kinds of conversations
  • Their purposes, timeframes, etc.

Structures and tools for different phases of conversation

Models for phases

• Diamond of participatory d-m.
  1. Divergent
  2. Integration
  3. Convergent
• Focused conversation
  1. The objective level
  2. The reflective level
  3. The interpretive level
  4. The decisional level
• Identify different structures/tools for each level

Brainstorm list of facilitation tools to see how they could be modeled in wiki

• Six hat thinking
• Dot voting
• Consensus decision making

Polls

This is only one specific tool but I want to capture some of my initial thoughts here.

Polls are really odd things the more I think about them. The have lots of uses but are often (IMO) overused. Using polls at the wrong time can be counter-productive.

Recommendations for using polls:

• Limit in time. Open-ended polls have very little meaning.
• Use questions to define poll.
• Format polls such that question and poll mechanism can be extracted with search - for grouping polls on one page.

Special situations

• How to introduce wiki facilitation into existing wiki conversations.
  • Identifying phase and naming it.
  • Lay out intention or possible goal.
  • get agreement from interested parties.
  • Refactor discussion to incorporate TopicPercolationStructure.

Possible patterns

• ComputerMediatedDiscussion
  • Context for wiki facilitation
  • solves certain challenges in communication but creates other challenges.
• WikiFacilitation
• StructuredInput
  • Polls, quick comment boxes
  • Purpose is to forward discussion.
• TopicPercolationStructure
  • division of topic into Purpose, Status, Structured input, discussion
  • Ideas move up through this structure.
  • Natural flow of information for user. Provides them with quick way to get up to speed on topic.

Related Links

• MeatBall:WikiPractices

Possible consulting service:

• http://webseitz.fluxent.com/wiki/WikiConsulting