5 ms·

Does Wikipedia count?

maxxxxx 8y ago
Wikipedia is pretty phenomenal but I was thinking more about a company. I have never seen a company that has the culture of continuously contributing to these efforts. They all fizzle out quickly.
- lucb1e 8y ago
  In the two companies I've worked for, I was/am one of the main people that try to update documentation. I should ask if my previous company still uses the wiki that I kind of revived (it was full of useful info, but most people preferred to bother others, and if they searched the wiki before, they would not update the wiki with the newly learned info). By making it a useful resource, I felt like more people would start to use it, but my six months of employment were probably too short to really make that a reality. I'm working in an even smaller company now - previously it was about 40 employees, now it's a handful. There are docs for the important things so there is no single point of failure, but very few day to day things are written down (like whom to report to that you're ill). As we grow, it's slowly becoming worth it to document that (single source of info instead of either having to bother the big boss or having different sources) and I'm looking at options to organise it. Organising it topic-based (graph(-like)) is an interesting alternative to the standard info dump with a search feature (wiki). Trying out Nuclino just now and putting some items into it, I additionally noticed that having a separate system from your actual knowledge database can also be useful: info pages are on the wiki, custom tools are in different git repositories, project info might be in some task manager... If you have a separate system (such as a graph) that just points you to the right URL (wiki/task manager) or folder within a git repository, the system can outlast any of the individual products being used. Then again, having a layer of indirection makes it more time-consuming to use when you know that your info page is going to be in the wiki. I guess it will have to be very quick to call up and integrated nicely to make it worth it for others to use.
  - maxxxxx 8y ago
    The problem with separate systems is that when you want to look up something you don’t know where to look unless it fits exactly into certain categories. Right now we use OneNote within the team for everything. It’s not perfect but at least I know where to look.
    - lucb1e 8y ago
      Having a system that organises the knowledge/info available should of course be comprehensive. If not everything is in there, there is no point having it. But it's a good point you make. Now that I write it like this, it makes it more clear for myself how the system would work. It wouldn't just be another separate system, it would be the index for all the systems and whenever someone writes a new page where-ever, they should be required to link it into this graph (or whatever form it takes).
      - maxxxxx 8y ago
        Also make sure that it’s really easy to figure out where to put new information and then it should be easy to put the information there. From my experience even the slightest friction or confusion will make people stop using the system.

Wikipedia is pretty phenomenal but I was thinking more about a company. I have never seen a company that has the culture of continuously contributing to these efforts. They all fizzle out quickly.

lucb1e 8y ago
In the two companies I've worked for, I was/am one of the main people that try to update documentation. I should ask if my previous company still uses the wiki that I kind of revived (it was full of useful info, but most people preferred to bother others, and if they searched the wiki before, they would not update the wiki with the newly learned info). By making it a useful resource, I felt like more people would start to use it, but my six months of employment were probably too short to really make that a reality. I'm working in an even smaller company now - previously it was about 40 employees, now it's a handful. There are docs for the important things so there is no single point of failure, but very few day to day things are written down (like whom to report to that you're ill). As we grow, it's slowly becoming worth it to document that (single source of info instead of either having to bother the big boss or having different sources) and I'm looking at options to organise it. Organising it topic-based (graph(-like)) is an interesting alternative to the standard info dump with a search feature (wiki). Trying out Nuclino just now and putting some items into it, I additionally noticed that having a separate system from your actual knowledge database can also be useful: info pages are on the wiki, custom tools are in different git repositories, project info might be in some task manager... If you have a separate system (such as a graph) that just points you to the right URL (wiki/task manager) or folder within a git repository, the system can outlast any of the individual products being used. Then again, having a layer of indirection makes it more time-consuming to use when you know that your info page is going to be in the wiki. I guess it will have to be very quick to call up and integrated nicely to make it worth it for others to use.
- maxxxxx 8y ago
  The problem with separate systems is that when you want to look up something you don’t know where to look unless it fits exactly into certain categories. Right now we use OneNote within the team for everything. It’s not perfect but at least I know where to look.
  - lucb1e 8y ago
    Having a system that organises the knowledge/info available should of course be comprehensive. If not everything is in there, there is no point having it. But it's a good point you make. Now that I write it like this, it makes it more clear for myself how the system would work. It wouldn't just be another separate system, it would be the index for all the systems and whenever someone writes a new page where-ever, they should be required to link it into this graph (or whatever form it takes).
    - maxxxxx 8y ago
      Also make sure that it’s really easy to figure out where to put new information and then it should be easy to put the information there. From my experience even the slightest friction or confusion will make people stop using the system.