Wiki success is subjective. Your definition is as good as mine, and they're gonna be different. What I often wonder about — and what Wikidot users don't yet have — are simple, accessible, objective wiki-success indicators.
For me, depth and breadth of participation is important. When we're successful, our neighborhood wiki draws from a range of people, each participating close to or just beyond the margin of their comfort zone.
I'd appreciate it if Wikidot offered better metrics to highlight its most successful wikis. For an amazing medium that facilitates and thrives on collaboration, it's surprising that our most visible participation measurement tool is karma, which rates individuals, not wikis. I'm not knocking karma — I pay attention to it, and it's helpful. But it would be great to have a similar, simple way to gauge which sites show signs of success.
Some ideas for wiki-success indicators:
- number of edits and comments — We've got something like this, but it's a rolling list that measures recent activity only.
- number of members — pretty simple, though it would miss all those anonymous contributors.
- participation diversity — like, how does each wiki compare to the 90-9-1 theory?
- customization and complexity — use of modules, custom css, unique site structures, and interesting content. We've got something like this too in "featured sites".
- longevity and growth over time
By these measures, I like to think our wiki is successful. We draw from a very local user base, so there's no real point in promoting the site in a broader Wikidot forum. But I would very much like to visit and learn from wikis that are successful by my terms. Thing is, I can't tell which ones they are.
