From Innovations, a website published by Ziff-Davis Enterprise from mid-2006 to mid-2009. Reprinted by permission.
Few icons of the so-called Web 2.0 revolution are as visible – or as controversial – as Wikipedia.org. This massive (11th most popular site on the Internet, according to Alexa.com) collectively edited encyclopedia has been hailed as both a shining example of collective wisdom and a chaotic cesspool of half-truths and misinformation.
One thing is for sure: Wikipedia is a bold experiment in transparent product design, and its lessons shouldn’t be lost on business. Whether you like Wikipedia or not, you can’t deny that its open-development model is just one very visible example of changes that are sweeping business.
David Weinberger last week spoke of a remarkable irony about Wikipedia. In admitting to the shortcomings of its community-edited content model, the encyclopedia actually makes itself more credible. Weinberger is a co-author of Cluetrain Manifesto, a 1999 essay that is generally accepted as the Declaration of Independence for Web 2.0. In a keynote address to the New Communications Forum in Las Vegas, he praised the culture of transparency that pervades Wikipedia, open-source software and the emerging open-development paradigm.
Wikipedia’s flaws enhance its credibility because it is so open about them, he said. Every entry into Wikipedia – including changes to facts, grammar and punctuation – is logged and frequently commented upon in the accompanying documentation pages. These history logs can be epic; for example, more than 1,000 revisions have been made to the entry on Saddam Hussein just since the first of this year. But the result is a window on the product development process that attempts to obscure nothing. Any flaws are right out there for anyone else to find and correct.
Wikipedia “is more interested in informing us than speaking as the voice of God,” Weinberger said, referring to the opaque process by which traditional publishers create their products. You’ll never see error logs or disclaimers in a daily newspaper or printed encyclopedia, he noted, because to expose mistakes implies fallibility. However, “The attempt to be infallible drives out credibility.” Human beings instinctively relate to human foibles. An organization that exposes its weaknesses and seeks help is more credible that one that covers them up.
You don’t have to be a publisher to see wisdom in these words or the creative potential that interactive media can unlock. Not long ago, software developers built their products under a shroud of secrecy and non-disclosure documents. It was as if only a select few people in the inner circle had the wisdom to innovative.
Today, the new breed of software developers is learning that their “public beta” programs inspire customers to contribute useful suggestions to a process that is never ending and to create products that constantly improve. For example, Ambient Devices, a maker of what it calls “glanceable” information displays, publishes detailed technical specifications of its products online and invites customers to improve its products. The company will even tell you how to build its product from scratch without paying Ambient a dime.
This kind of openness is an early-stage trend being pioneered by the technology markets, but it’s not hard to see the idea spreading into other spheres. Who will be the first auto maker to create a beta program for a new line of cars by posting specs and asking for input? For that matter, why would anyone want to try to keep new products secret any more, when so much creative energy exists out in the field?
Businesses have all but lost the ability to keep secrets. Why not consider turning a problem into a virtue by inviting comments on your ideas? You might find it enhances your credibility.