A Wired propôs aos seus leitores a escrita de um texto-wiki. O resultado teve uma análise: When the experiment closed, Wednesday afternoon, there were 348 edits of the main story, 21 suggested headlines and 39 edits of the discussion pages. Thirty hyperlinks were added to the 20 in the original story, and a sidebar of sorts, called the enumeration page, holds the overflow of information and links that could not fit into the main story.
Certainly the final story is more accurate and more representative of how wikis are used.
Is it a better story than the one that would have emerged after a Wired News editor worked with it?
I think not.
The edits over the week lack some of the narrative flow that a Wired News piece usually contains. The transitions seem a bit choppy, there are too many mentions of companies, and too much dry explication of how wikis work.
It feels more like a primer than a story to me.
That doesn't make the experiment a failure
