Search Powered by:
Inman Wiki
I’ve been following Inman wiki since its launch. So far it seems to be a combination of user-generated great articles, random blog posts, and blatant sales pleas. For example, searching the word “ethics” brings up an unhelpful keyword bullet point list by an author with five credentials after her name and a link to her site. Another click through is just a cut and paste from a Realtor association website. Another links to a bio for an appraiser. Is this a wiki or a real estate advertising portal?
Last weekend, when I wrote the first draft of this RCG post, there was a detailed story about an agent’s questionable ethics in his chosen marketing tactics, and the agent was listed by name. That wiki submission has since been removed, yet it was the most interesting article available.
How does a wiki work with the many articles I have already co-authored for Brad Inman? Why aren’t those showing in the Inman wiki? I know where they are now: they’re behind the Inman Members Only website. Looks like I can upload what I’ve already written for Brad, but I have to do the work for Inman. If their news articles have already made it past the Inman editing team, why can’t they just upload what they already have? Oh, yeah, that’s right. Then the members only section of Inman would be out there for free.
I love wikipedia. Recently, I was working on a blog post for RCG in which I needed to fully research the a federal law. After approaching near eyestrain from reading through the federal register, I like to stop by wikipedia because the article authors often are able to summarize in very clear terms and provide great references. At the end of the article, I found a link to a business owner in California. He and I are now working together on a reciprocal B2B partnership. This is a wiki at its best.
So now there are more websites that want what’s in my brain for free. Restated: they want me to spend my valuable time giving the contents of my brain to the universe and trusting that something good will come of it. Alright, I can do this! I can already connect business deals and new friendships to my blogging efforts here, so I can take a leap of faith with a wiki. But let’s do an experiment. I will post the same article about Short Sales on the Inman wiki as I do here on RCG and I’ll share a results comparison at a later date. Already, someone else named Roger has come in and added a couple of hyperlinks to my article. For this, he gets to add his name as a co-author. This seems unfair. What do you think?
Posted: February 14th, 2007 under General Real Estate.
Tags: brad-inman, ethics, inman-wiki, short-sale, wikis
About the Author: Jillayne Schlicke
- Author's website: http://www.ceforward.com
- More posts by Jillayne Schlicke
- Email the author
Comments
2.
Comment
from Jillayne Schlicke
Time February 15, 2007 at 1:33 pm
Hi Robbie,
Yeah, I looked at the Zillow Wiki. The first thing I noticed was that they’re lacking a “search” box, and where a visitor would find a search box on wikipedia, Zillow strategically placed advertising boxes in that same place. Interesting.
I’m in the middle of writing a masters thesis, and there is no way anyone on my degree committee would approve a wikipedia reference. However, for information needs that have lower consequences for accuracy, I do love the ease of wikipedia.
I am curious about the use of any wiki like Inman or Zillow for use as a tool that would connect us with many, many others. Not just doing so for the sake of needing to analyze ROI (return on the time investment) but for giving something to the world that’s in your brain for the sake of sharing knowledge. My hypothesis is that the ROI would present itself organically.
3.
Comment
from Rhonda Porter
Time February 15, 2007 at 4:08 pm
Hi Jillayne, it looks like Roger is the Chief Moderator of InmanWiki. I agree it’s odd how it appears as if he co-authored your article. Maybe they should change it to say “approved by Roger…”?
4.
Comment
from Drew Meyers from Zillow
Time February 16, 2007 at 9:27 am
Jillayne -
Interesting article you’ve put together. A search box for the wiki is currently in the development pipeline — we’ll have it soon.
5.
Comment
from Jillayne Schlicke
Time February 16, 2007 at 10:00 am
Hi Drew,
Thanks for stopping by RCG. One of the things about the Inman wiki that I thought was pretty cool, was their report on recent search terms.
I saw that the most often searched topic was “short sales” so I put together a way more detailed article than what Inman had available for visitors. It didn’t take me long (half an hour) to share my knowledge, and if it helps homeowners and agents, even just a little, terrific.
From a psychological motivation level, it prompted this reader to jump up and “help” the world a little bit, reaching in and making me think about the balance between internal motivation (generosity, helpfulness) v. external motivation (money, recognition, ego gratification).
6.
Comment
from matt carter
Time February 16, 2007 at 5:58 pm
Robbie — All content in the Inman Wiki is freely acccesible to all. Nothing is hidden. Jillayne wanted to know why the copyrighted articles she has written for Inman News — which is a separate site — aren’t on the Inman Wiki.
Jillayne — thought your article on short sales on the Inman Wiki was very informative and an improvement over what was already there. The “wiki thing to do” might have been to edit the original entry rather than create a new one, though.
The issue of authorship on Wikis is a little different than many of us who write bylined stories or blog posts are used to. A Wiki is supposed to be a collaborative effort. When you post an article many people may add their own insight (well, you hope they will be insightful). On Wikipedia, this may not be obvious since you have to dig behind the scenes to see the various versions of a story and authors, but it’s not unusual for an article to have dozens of authors and versions. On Wikipedia or Inman Wiki, It’s only “yours” until someone comes along and changes it.
(see the guidelines)
http://www.inmanwiki.com/Real-Estate/Guidelines_for_InmanWiki_Contributions
The Inman Wiki does allow people to use bylines if they are writing pieces that “offer significant educational content” but that doesn’t mean somebody won’t come along and add to or change your post.
This is a strength and weakness of all Wikis. You gain from the wisdom of the crowd but there’s the potential for people to go in and take things out of your article or add things that are innacurate. There’s always the previous version to go back to, but the idea is keep adding to the entry, making it better by expanding its scope, and not to get into a battle of egos.
You sometimes see big controversies over entries on Wikipedia but for the most part the system works, in that they have amassed a vast storehouse of information that can serve as an excellent jumping off point for further exploration. (Wikipedia also has some strict rules about maintaining a neutral position and providing outside links to back up statements of fact.)
The key to any Wiki’s success is a lot of participation, both in terms of contributions and editing, including policing of the site to catch the innacurate or strictly self-promotional contributions.
7.
Comment
from Jillayne Schlicke
Time February 16, 2007 at 7:42 pm
Hi Matt,
Thanks for stopping by RCG.
Q: If it’s discouraged in the guidelines, why are there so many people posting their own biographies or posting sales pitches?
Q: Why are the articles I co-authored for Brad Inman not on the Inman Wiki?
8.
Comment
from Frank Blau
Time February 18, 2007 at 3:23 pm
One of the areas where wikis can be a huge resource is in the critical analysis and annotation of literature.
Prior to the wikis, there was only one author (Stephen Weisenberger) that had published an annotation of Thomas Pynchon’s “Gravity’s Rainbow”. With only one person tracking down the references, you get a lot of bias and conjecture in the work. But with wiki you get a self-correcting, ever-expanding analysis and reference for a complex work. Now there are several wonderful and deep references for a novel that contains a great deal of obscure historical and scientific references.
I contribute regularly to the new wiki for Pynchon’s new novel, “Against the Day”. (http://against-the-day.pynchonwiki.com), where I am constantly amazed at the scholarship and occasionally obsessive posts of my fellow readers.
9.
Comment
from matt carter
Time February 19, 2007 at 8:40 am
Jillayne, you asked:
“Q: If it’s discouraged in the guidelines, why are there so many people posting their own biographies or posting sales pitches?”
Wiki users are welcome to create agent or business profiles in the appropriate categories:
http://www.inmanwiki.com/Real-Estate/InmanWiki_Qwik_Tips:_Creating_a_Profile
The moderator (with the help of Wiki users) is working to keep blatant ads and sales pitches off the site.
Here are what the guidelines have to say about it:
“To that end, we discourage contributors from posting advertisements, press releases, product offers, Web pages or other material whose primary purpose is to directly solicit the purchase or a property, product or service. If what you are posting is designed to sell rather than educate, please do not post it here.
There are several categories where you can educate consumers about the services you offer. We encourage you to submit your personal, brokerage or company promotions to the “Real Estate Agent,” “Real Estate Brokerage, “Real Estate Products and Services” and “Technology and Online Real Estate” categories. Your “User ID” profile also offers a chance to provide contact and other information.”
“Q: Why are the articles I co-authored for Brad Inman not on the Inman Wiki? ”
The Inman Wiki is a free resource that anyone can access. The Inman News archives are a service provided to subscribers.
10.
Comment
from Jillayne Schlicke
Time February 19, 2007 at 11:51 am
Thanks for the clarification/direction, Matt. After I thought about it for awhile, I figured that news-related stories didn’t quite fit on a wiki. What I co-author is often educational. I think those articles might be a good fit. I’ll go through them and see if they need modifying to be wiki-ready.
11.
Comment
from Jillayne Schlicke
Time February 19, 2007 at 11:55 am
Hi Frank,
Thanks for stopping by RCG.
Q: What happens when detail-obsessed wiki users disagree on the user-content references or facts from Pynchon’s new novel, “Against the Day?”
12.
Comment
from Frank Blau
Time February 19, 2007 at 2:45 pm
The nice thing about that particular Wiki is that there is room for dissent and conflicting interpretations. That is not the case with many other Wikis.
What can happen on a Wiki is a ping-ponging of “facts” between users. But since Pynchon is notoriously reticent to add any original source material to the scholarship of his work, we are also liberated to hypothesize at will.
I took part in a demo project with the City of Sammamish (disclosure: I was on the Technology Committee at the time) to develop a WIki for distributing information about the city. One of the reasons this was not successful is the fact that not all communications are suited to a group consensus for dissemination. If your communication is just one-directional, ie: you are giving information that you are in control of to people, then a blog or just a website is perhaps a better vehicle for your content. But if you are actively seeking participation in the collection (and correction!) of content, then a Wiki is a great way to go about it.
It’s all about Information Design!
13.
Comment
from Jillayne Schlicke
Time February 23, 2007 at 2:46 pm
Copy/Paste from Inman News:
Users get more opportunities on tried and tested news service
Friday, February 23, 2007
Inman News is introducing a slew of new products as we turn to our readers to participate more in our news platform. The idea is to expose our content, inspire richer feedback and encourage contributions in the spirit of using the platform to promote innovation in the Inman tradition.
Under the heading “Inman Community Zone” on the Inman News home page, we have launched a series of new features:
We have exposed 4,000 Inman News articles on the InmanWiki and plan to open up thousands more. We have as many as 20,000 articles in our news library….”
Thank you Brad and Jessica!!
14.
Comment
from Lebanon Oregon Real Estate
Time December 31, 2007 at 3:32 am
Abouth the Short sales, they are looking even better right now. I noticed the inventory is raising locally. Might be a good thing for investors.
15.
Comment
from Broker Price Opinion
Time February 27, 2008 at 4:06 pm
I noticing more Broker Price Opinions that are requested for Short Sale Homes.
16.
Comment
from ARDELL
Time February 27, 2008 at 10:18 pm
BPO,
I heard that today as well. Better than using the appraisal from the last refi or time of purchase.
1. Comment from Robbie
Time February 15, 2007 at 11:36 am
I agree that Wikipedia does rock (despite it’s shortcomings).
It does seem a bit self defeating that Inman would “hide” all the articles behind the Inman members only website. If only members can see it, only members can read and have an incentive to create content. Inman should get more ad revenue (but might lose subscription revenue) if they opened it up.
Although the software industry has some success mixing open and proprietary business models (the most common is giving away the software and selling the support), it’s seems the media industry is fighting amongst itself trying to find a model that works (with Viacom & YouTube being a recent example). It’ll be interesting to see how it all plays out.
BTW, anybody checked out the Zillow Wiki?