According to Learned the formulation and diffusion of knowledge is in many respects more difficult than its discovery. For example, experience the difficulty a person may have when trying to describe a computer problem to a tech support person. The most difficult problem in such a situation is the presentation of the problem and solution in ways that both can grasp and understand.

Wikis cannot successfully diffuse knowledge. Successful diffusion of knowledge is the product of interaction and guidance. Take for example the act of answering a reference question. A librarian, through the act of asking questions and listening, is able to determine what knowledge is being sought. Using the information gathered in the reference interview the librarian is able to select, filter, organize and present knowledge in a way that has meaning to the inquirer. Or at least that’s the way we hope it will work.

At its best the wiki presents knowledge to the inquirer. It can go no further. You cannot ask a question of a wiki article and have it respond to you. As a child my father was fond of directing me to the World Book Encyclopedia he had proudly purchased. If I asked him a question he couldn’t answer he would tell me to look it up in the World Book. My father assumed that the World Book article would provide the knowledge I sought. He never considered the aspect of diffusion. He did not question the World Book’s ability to share knowledge. The wiki provides no means for interaction. It does not ask “does this answer your question?”.

A wiki excels at the discovery and formulation of knowledge, but because it is a technology, it cannot successfully diffuse knowledge.

If you haven’t been following the (somewhat contrived) “debate” on Web 2.0 that’s taking place over on the Britannica blog, I highly recommend you direct your peepers to Danah Boyd’s excellent and insightful piece (itself of a critique of Gorman’s piece), “Knowledge Access as a Public Good“.

Boyd goes way beyond the discussion of whether or not Wikipedia is a trustworthy source and puts it into a social and historical context. Wikipedia is both an instigator of and a reflection of a shift in power; specifically a shift of power away from the publishers and information gatekeepers and towards everyone and anyone else who has a pc and an internet connection. It’s therefore not surprising that criticisms of Wikipedia come from librarians, publishers, and the MSM, all of whom, arguably, have something to lose as the power to publish, distribute, critique, and evaluate information is more widely available to the great unwashed.

Power to the people!