Defra and the LA Times

On the surface, the Defra wiki experiment in the UK is another demerit for wikis and fodder for those that view the idea of open authorship an inevitable mistake. Like the LA Times experiment in communal reporting before it, Defra was doomed to failure even as it launched. However, a closer look might reveal two very important properties of community building that they lacked: strong and patient leadership, and participant support.

Defra — the Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs (an odd glob of interests, if you ask me) — had the bright idea of opening up a wiki as a public forum for ideas and feedback. According to the department’s head honcho David Miliband, the wiki was an experiment “to develop what an environmental contract should look like, drawing on the ideas and ingenuity of a much broader and more diverse group of people than I could ever reach through the usual channels government ministers use.”

After opening it up for public consumption, the Defra wiki was closed. The intent was to have the public edit a draft of an environmental contract, but it very quickly deteriorated. Most of the comments from some 170 or so authors seemed to be critical in nature, including the presence of a swastika in the Labour Party logo, many references to Milibrand’s “beautiful face,” and some silliness about owl magnets.

A similar disaster happened over a year ago to the L.A. Times Wikitorial, which was meant to encourage readers to help create editorials. Instead, some inappropriate contributions quickly crossed the threshhold of acceptable content for the paid editors, and the L.A. Times pulled the plug. Now, any mainstream media article that mentions wikis points to the Wikitorial as a reason why they are doomed to failure. Wikipedia is a freak of nature, they claim, and open authoring is idealistic mumbo jumbo.

What both attempts failed to grasp is that communities are created from people, not structures. A Buzz Machine editorial put it very well: “You don’t build a town without cops.” Investment in a wiki community, at the very least, requires some commitment to man the shop and keep the riff raff at bay (or better yet, find a way to engage them in a positive connection). This is even more true whey the community is too broad or unknown. Defra opened their space to “the public,” presumably including those who disagree with the scientific arguments for Global Warming, hate government mandates, or have other reasons to want to see Miliband fail. Wikis are also about making mistakes, both intentional (to spur correction, and thus participation) and as part of the process of building consensus.

To Defra’s credit, David Miliband appears ready to renew the experiement. In his blog, he writes:

ps. Since writing this I gather that we have demonstrated the extreme openness of the wiki by playing host to some practical jokes plus a swastika. Strange how some people get their kicks. But the experiment will continue.

While the Times and some bloggers have viewed this as a demoralizing defeat for Miliband, wikis and open democracy, there are others who see a bigger picture. Undoubtedly, opening up the wiki again will bring the same crowd of malcontents set on bringing it down. However, perhaps the wiki community at large will rise to the occasion and help get the site into a stable balance. Or maybe those who “participated” last time will get past themselves and try to critique Miliband’s contract in a more constructive light.