In a post meant to incite controversy, Ars Technica writer Jeremy Reimer declared Microsoft Word dead and declared wikis (MediaWiki, in particular) the new champion of word processing.
I disagree, and I’m not the only one.
I happen to like MediaWiki but even RichmondWiki’s internal stats show that only a small percentage of visitors are likely to edit an article. The number one reason is the difficulty and learning curve of the editing process. For better or worse, MS Word has evolved to a point where it epitomizes the UI and functional “conventions” of what a word processor should do. The vast majority of people have a certain comfort level with the Word interface despite its bloated and often counter-intuitive feature set.
Until MediaWiki’s WYSIWYG interface is fully functional and ready for public consumption, I don’t foresee the masses abandoning MS Word in favor of MediaWiki. Cloud-based, collaborative document editing programs such as Google Docs or Zoho are more likely contenders to gain market share because:
- Both programs allow for simultaneous editing by multiple authors (So does MediaWiki)
- Both programs have version control so previous versions are always available (So does MediaWiki)
- Both programs adopted the GUI standards that offline word processors melted into our collective subconscious (MediaWiki is working on it, but it’s not quite there)
- Both programs are integrated with other office software: spreadsheets, charting, email, slideshows, etc. (MediaWiki does not)
- Neither program requires IT or server resources to set up, administer and upgrade (MediaWiki does)
Microsoft’s Office suite is destined for the cloud as well, so we’ll see how that goes. Let’s hope they get it right. Competition is a good thing for technology markets. But, for the time being, I’m afraid we’re all stuck with Clippy, that incessantly eager-to-please paperclip that does anything but actually help.
Possibly Related Posts:
