Real Estate Wikis Galore!

Inman News recently introduced its (aptly-named) "InmanWiki," a wiki devoted to the real estate industry.  "The Real Estate Encyclopedia" reportedly contains "thousands of pages of up-to-date, real world info about buying, selling and investing in real estate"  and provides information about all aspects of the real estate industry.  Along with Zillow's previously-launched Real Estate Wiki, the InmanWiki represents another valuable resource for finding and sharing knowledge.

...you lost me at "Wiki"
To define a "wiki," I think it is only fitting to turn to the grand-master wiki itself: Wikipedia

A wiki (IPA: [ˈwɪ.kiː] <WICK-ee> or [ˈwiː.kiː] <WEE-kee>^[1]) is a website that allows the visitors themselves to easily add, remove, and otherwise edit and change available content, typically without the need for registration. This ease of interaction and operation makes a wiki an effective tool for mass collaborative authoring. The term wiki also can refer to the collaborative software itself (wiki engine) that facilitates the operation of such a Web site, or to certain specific wiki sites, including the computer science site (the original wiki) WikiWikiWeb and on-line encyclopedias such as Wikipedia.

So, wikis are more of a "grass roots method" of compiling information in which users contribute to and edit the content of the site, rather than the "top-down system" of dispersing information to the masses, as is seen in traditional resources like encyclopedias and journals.  There is generally no central regulating committee that determines what is to be included in or omitted from the site nor is there an approved group of experts authoring the articles.  Instead, wikis facilitate a collective sharing of wisdom in which every individual is allowed a voice.

Wikis & the Real Estate Industry

In the spirit of Web 2.0, both Zillow and Inman have introduced real estate wikis that rely on individuals to add and manage the content of the site.  While providing a valuable platform for sharing insights, views, and experiences, wikis' dependence on user-generated content simultaneously diminishes the authority and credibility of information. The role of wikis in the real estate industry can be better understood by examining both the benefits associated with the sharing of wisdom, as well as the drawbacks of online collaborative efforts.

The Positive Aspects of Wikis

Because wikis rely on user-generated content, they provide an alternative source of information to supplement traditional resources like newspapers and encyclopedias.  Wikis provide a platform for conversation to occur between individuals who may otherwise be unable to effectively share their knowledge.  Thus, because wikis allow individuals to communicate their thoughts, ideas, and insights, they often include knowledge that is unavailable elsewhere and broaden the scope of information available.

The Downside of Wikis

While user-generated content can provide additional information about a subject, it can also diminish the usefulness of the material presented.  As wikis lack an active overseer and encourage individuals to provide and edit the content, the information presented is of uncertain authority.  Just as one person can share great insights and offer valuable tips, another can provide bad advice and false information. 

As a history and political science major, I did my fair share of research.  When I first discovered Wikipedia, I thought it was the greatest thing to ever happen to me, until I began recognizing  blatant errors and misinformation presented in the articles.  Then, I realized that Wikipedia was actually a researcher's worst nightmare, as it lulls you into thinking that you are acquiring factual information, when, in reality, you could be reading something written by a 7th grader (or by a leading expert...you never know).  In fact, there was not a single professor who would accept Wikipedia as a source and some even automatically docked your grade 15% for each citation of a wiki article.  Through my own experiences, I was soon convinced that these professors were correct: Wikipedia is not a reference and shouldn't be viewed as such.

My point: Though wikis can provide great sources for additional information and present first-hand accounts of the real estate industry, you can't turn a blind eye to the questionable authority of the information.  That being said, wikis are still of value, supplying helpful, instructive, and practical information, and rely on the contributions of individual users... so share your experience and knowledge! 

Comments

[Michael Price]

Excellent commentary, in fact the best I've seen on the subject. There are so many issues regarding credibility these days. I've noticed that the RE.Net is starting to fill up with self appointed experts that are giving advice, much of which is based upon anecdotal experience or worse, is completely baseless. So, when it comes to information, Caveat Emptor.

[Travis : Neighboroo]

Very good article about the goods and bads of wikis. I'm a fan of user generated content, especially for opinions and fair reviews. When it's statistically significant, it's much more relevant and objective than an "expert". But when it comes to wikis, it's similar to letting a group edit a document. A world with wikis is better than one without them. You can always choose to consult them with a grain of salt.

[Brad Inman]

Thanks for the explanation of Wikis and for the mention of the InmanWiki. FYI: you can put a RSS feed of your blog on the Wiki. Details:
http://www.inmanwiki.com/Real-Estate/Adding_an_RSS_Feed_from_Your_Blog_to_InmanWiki

[Gabe Gross]

Just to correct a detail: InmanWiki (and I believe wikipedia too) are moderated, although your point about user generated content is still valid.

[Colleen Corgan]

Gabe,
Thanks for clarifying that point-- When I said that wikis generally lack "active" oversight I didn't mean to imply the absence of a regulatory body, but rather question the effectiveness of this moderation. I'd argue that no amount of moderation can ensure the accuracy of user-generated content as effectively as relying on editors to select which expertly-authored articles to provide. (Side note: Wikipedia employs only 5 editors to moderate the 1,626,824 written in English)

As Michael points out, there is becoming more of a "credibility issue," especially with the recent popularity of Web 2.0, blogging, and social networks. However, I too am a huge proponent of user-generated content and feel that first-hand accounts and personal insights often prove more useful than official/expert advice. So, I'd have to agree with Travis that "a world with wikis is better than one without them."

[Jim Duncan]

As others have said, these are excellent remarks on the potential value provided by wikis. I am going to use this as a primer for both newbies and experienced writers/bloggers.

-Jim

[Colleen Corgan]

Thanks Jim! The more people who recognize the significance & value of wikis, (as well as the potential problems associated with them) the better!

And Brad, thanks for the heads-up on setting up a RSS feed- sounds like a great way to build content. I'll check it out and report back.

[Michael Price]

Moderation is only done to stop article vandalism. Of course, there is really nothing that can be done to moderate the validity or quality. I'm not "anti-wiki". In fact, I'm a huge fan of quality user generated content. I'm too old to wrap mind around some of the stuff that kids find interesting in other user generated content sites, but the concept certainly isn't lost on me. I'm working on a side project to convert a pet project of mine, 360Houston.Com, to a wiki style site with some old friends. We're going to allow Houstonians to share what they love about the city. I just want to the fun parts, I'll have to find someone else to moderate it :)