Looks like last week’s inaugural Skeptic’s Mom post was a resounding success, so it’s time once more to… ask… skeptic’s… Mom!!!!  Today’s episode focuses on Wikis.  The question, as asked, was: “Mom, what would you say a Wiki is, and (if you find out) could you possibly envision yourseld using one? If so, what for?”  For a quick refresher on the rules, Mom has 2 minutes to get some kind of answer, then up to 30 more minutes to google away.

What is a Wiki? My first inclination is to laugh at the name; I haven’t any
idea. Depending on how you pronounce it, it could be something found in
Miniature Golf or a real technological thingie. So I’m going to look it up
because I don’t know.

Okay..I’m looking this thing up and I’ve just been informed that at some
point I’ll be able to watch stuff in the public restroom. Why would I want
to do that?? It’s bad enough that I go to the restroom and there’s people
there talking on their cellphones!!!
…

Go take a poke around, you’ll see answering this one isn’t as easy as you might expect.  And it’s not fair to count Wikipedia, since despite our little worlds, not everyone knows about it. For example, if you google wiki, one of the more compelling links is from wiki.org.  Here’s the first paragraph from that definition:

Wiki is a piece of server software that allows users to freely create and edit Web page content using any Web browser. Wiki supports hyperlinks and has a simple text syntax for creating new pages and crosslinks between internal pages on the fly.

I understand all of that, but it really is too darn jargony.  So Mom apparently went around looking for more practical definitions.  Let’s see the rest of her response.

…
Now I’m reading about the ease of getting information about restaurants,
hotels, etc. I guess if all of this is easy to access I would use it. If it
requires more effort than looking in a travel book I wouldn’t have the
slightest interest. I might be missing something about the joys of Wiki but
I don’t want to spend time looking for stuff that I could more easily find
elsewhere, like in my Lonely Planet book………..and the pictures are
nicer.
…

I guess she’s not compelled there. I decided to poke around a bit and find some examples of companies either using wiki technology for their businesses, or those who are providing wiki technology to others (here’s a SIX-page review of how to select a hosted wiki.  ugh!).  Here are some highlights:

• Jotspot lets you “Create and share documents, spreadsheets, calendars and more with a free wiki for use in work or in life.“  If Mom is an office worker who uses Word and Excel, does anything about the description really sound compelling?  Doubtful.
• ProductWiki has a welcome page in which their tagline is “Open the consumer experience.” Now, I happen to think there is something compelling about really exploding the amount of user-to-user feedback and information about products that can help consumers make better buying decisions.  I don’t think these guys have hit it yet, and I don’t like the tagline, but at least they avoid too much wiki in their vocabulary.
• PlaceWiki needs a complete GUI redesign (I thought Web 2.0 sites were supposed to look pretty?), but does have a decent description: “PlaceWiki - For sharing places and activities.  Anyone can add or edit information about a place or attraction.” Like it or not, you know what it does.
• StikiPad seems extremely stuck on their technology, and their consumer benefits are, well, lacking.  They use ‘write a book‘ as an example, and something tells me they don’t have and never will have a single author take them up on that challenge.

And my favorite…

• PBWiki lets you “Make a free, password-protected wiki as easily as a peanut butter sandwich.“ You don’t get what’s wrong with that?  They take a technology that is only known inside the high tech/Web 2.0 world, and then talk about how easy it is to create.  Oxymoronic, emphasis not on the oxy.

It’s probably a good thing she missed out on the TechCrunch party invite wiki.  For a hysterical write-up on what happened when Mike Arrington attempted to use a wiki to create a party signup, read this on ValleyWag.  This to me was a perfect example of “Web 2.0 Technology Gone Wild” - despite the fact that the blog has a near-perfect system for handling individual signups (hello, commenting… hello?), a wiki was created which caused nothing but frustration.  Tech for tech’s sake alone.

Now let’s hear the rest of what Mom had to say on the topic

…
I can’t get past the phrase ‘Sticky Wicket” related to the game of Cricket, and that’s where I’m stuck. So that’s my answer.  Or…. Wiki…something to do with Wireless….a little doohickie that connects you to… something?

Mom is chatting with Dave Winer to join him at this year’s Wikimania.

Saw a link (TO a link with the real story, of course) today about Tick, a Web 2.0 online project/time tracker.  First off, to whomever runs the Talking Web 2.0 blog, can you please put in a policy where posts have to have some amount of original content?  If not, if you are really just quoting someone else’s post, then at least link to the final destination, I am tired of these ridiculous link trains.  It’s like an even dumber version of the Da Vinci Code without all those pesky clues and whatnot.

Okay, back on track now.  Here’s the pitch for the site, dissected:

Devlounge: Tick is an upcoming web 2.0 app with a different flair.
Dead2.0 translation: Tick is an upcoming web 2.0 app that is mostly the same as something else, but with one minor feature change.

Devlounge: Once again, it’s another tracker, but this time, it helps you manage time.
Dead2.0 translation: Like many many others, it’s another (yawn) tracker, but this time, the user interface is different, and they show you progress by time instead of some other metric.

Devlounge: In an exclusive insiders look at the current pre-release version, we’ll let you know if Tick has a future as a successful web app, or if it should be swept away in the web 2.0 craze.
Dead2.0 translation: We saw a cool demo, and tried to scoop TechCrunch (successfully), because if he links to us, we will achieve fame and glory (unsuccessfully, but instead just this damn skeptic guy did).

This “review” is actually pretty spot on for the type of Web 2.0 hype-mongering I really dislike.  First of all, the reviewer took the time to take a screenshot of the login screen.  It features, wait for it… a completely standard login page!!! 

Next he shows how easy it is to create a project (again, with a screenshot of the link, and a reference to how 37signals-like this is).  I have a hunch it isn’t getting too far from 37signals (which I will discuss some time in the future, but if you really want to hear about how they make design decisions, you can read this… personally, I didn’t even scroll down a page-length, but that’s just me…)… Moving right along, users can add tasks which have the novel twist of assigning a time-based budget.  See how it comes together? Tick, like in a clock?  Time-based?  Get it?  Get it???  Oh. yeah, I guess so.

The review plods along (it’s actually two pages long of the same meandering blather) to show more very simple screenshots of a very simple-looking interface.  Finally we get to the conclusion:

Tick is an interesting new project. While today there are trackers galore in the web 2.0 app building world, tick allows you to track something different - budgets. While, at least at the moment I have no use for tick, it could become very useful, especially to those managing multiple projects and clients with many staff members. And by many staff - we mean it, because tick does not limit you to any amount of users.

To Team Devlounge: Want to avoid my criticism?  Write something useful.  Tick “could” become useful?  How about you at least identify three (just three) market segments who would need this.  That’s right, find some companies who cannot do time card management already and want to move it to some freebie Web site.  Is this for really small companies who can’t afford real infrastructure?  If so, they probably can manage with an Excel file.  Is it for big companies?  Well, they have Oracle and a suite of other options.

UPDATED: while everything above stands, the comments below may have been a bit out of line.  Please read more here. 

I may be right, I may be wrong, but at least I’ll put a stake in the ground:

In my opinion, Tick is no more than a feature that all project management software should include.  Is it a good idea?  Sure!  You should be able to find it in the View tab of Project 2007.  Furthermore all of MS Project should natively work with Web publishing (attention Microsoft: Sharepoint doesn’t cut it!) and all that. 

To Team Tick: with any luck you can get picked up by a MS or a Google (gProject?), but you better move fast and fully integrate with either Office or Google Calendar.  You may have to just buid exactly that, and go to both companies with a “business development” meeting, and hope for the best.  Otherwise, I don’t see the revenue model, and you are in a crowded space that already includes Microsoft as a competitor. 

Dead 2.0 odds for success (determined purely by hunch, with “success” meaning the founders personally make a lot of money from the venture) : 1 in 300.