Wikis

Here at LMW, we're gaga about wikis. In fact, I believe that wikis will become increasingly important to the practice of law. I believe that many law firms will begin to create wikis for internal knowledge bases. (I believe that Morrison+Foerester has done so, using SocialText. I am planning to introduce my firm to SocialText in the next few months to try to drum up some interest for our own knowledgebase.) Legal OnRamp, a new Biglaw social networking site, has incorporated a wiki. I recall seeing "wikilaw" (though as of this writing I can't find the web site).

Wikis make sense to lawyers because they use words and link to concepts, composed of other words, and that's how lawyers tend to think. When we draft contracts or statutes, we use defined terms to convey the meaning of broader concepts. In many ways, legal writing is like programming, with its logic and structure. But one thing that drags down many people who might otherwise be interested in law is the archaic procedural aspects.

Which got me thinking. One of the ways that business handles complex procedural matters is by flow charting. Wouldn't it be cool to have a graphical wiki? A wiki flow-chart? Imagine a wiki that attempts to describe a process graphically, but that can be edited by others wiki-style to best describe the logical process of otherwise complex procedural rules. Lawsuits, zoning variances, employment--all of these have elaborate procedural elements that require years to master. Before the law can be accessible to all, we need a means to make these procedures less arcane. Perhaps one way to do so would be to flow chart it, and then let lawyers and judges and legislators examine the process with a new set of eyes.

Sure enough, a Google search for "graphical wiki" shows that Kerika purports to be just such a thing. I'd love to sit down and play with it for awhile, but I've got hours to bill.