Matt Webb
Via Simon Roberts in email:
"The meaning of a word is not a matter of fact (which is why an argument about it can't be settled by recourse to the dictionary), and it is not a matter of opinion (which is why an argument about it mustn't be unsettled by a refusal to have recourse to the dictionary). The meaning of a word is a human agreement, created within society but incapable of having meaning except to and through individuals. We may find evidence for such agreements, but we can't find proof of them. A language is a body of agreements. Some lapse; others change; new ways form".
(From The State of Language (Ricks).)
Wikis foster the development of a shared vocabulary through such agreements. Each page has a title, initially created by one contributor. The contributor shares an initial definition, but puts it into a social space for others to redefine.
Once a term is introduced as a title, it rarely goes away. Someone may clone the page and create a new title, but links to the original page exist, so a forwarding link at least remains in reference. The context of links help define a term (and with the English language, there are three degrees of seperation between words).
The body of a wiki page is where agreement is reached on its meaning. Since its editable space, without social agreement there is a natural tension. Create a page called Abortion in a space shared with strangers (e.g. Wikipedia) and disagreement is quickly revealed. Text is deleted, struck through, wiped over, pushed down or imposed. The cycle can repeat itself in these worst case scenarios. But eventually an agreement is struck. Tenuous peace by linking to opposing new pages, Pro-choice & Pro-life for example. Perhaps what remains is a simple chunk of text, the lowest common denominator of what can be agreed. As Clay points out, other tools would amplify personality to the point where discord would dominate. Wikis allow opposites to exist in a community without heavy-handed moderation.
Sometimes a term is introduced that is outside the bounds of acceptability to the community. Attempts to wipe it clean and banish it from existence usually result in re-occurence. But replacing its definition with a clear rationale for why it was censored fosters understanding and learning within the community.
Wikipedia and the relatively new Wiktionary are the clearest example of people reaching agreement over language in this form.
The Atom Wiki is an interesting case where the ability to create new terms fostered an explosion of language, but agreement has yet to be struck. The naming of a product or standard is a difficult process even when all the participants are branding or IP experts. Perhaps Phase IIwill lead to agreements because consensus failure can be a driver for conciliation. The practice (not process!) continues.
Reaching agreement on a smaller scale within organizations as they define their shared vocabulary. There the objective is not defintion, but it is a positive externality of the communication and activities they undertake. A body of implicit and explicit agreements emerges that enhance trust and social capital.
