The recent Twitter experience in Iran may be the most useful example when considering this. It shows that real-time collaboration can work in charged political and humanitarian situations. However, it also emphasizes the key issue of how contributors can feel safe creating another way to track them and their efforts.
As compared to Twitter, a Wiki also has the significant disadvantage that it really takes a computer (not just a phone) to update and is much more effort than micro-blogging.
The advantage of a wiki is greater coordination of resources. That's why I have chosen a wiki for a local project in my area of the US that is about to launch bringing together social service providers and faith communities to collaborate around volunteering and gaps in the social net at http://soulbridge.wetpaint.com (live but not yet fully launched).
In the end, it probably won't work, but might be worth a try anyway. However, paramount attention will have to be given to simplicity of editing and contributing, and it will take buy-in from some of the major information sources to get enough front-end contributions that people will start coming.
This is very true. My church denomination has articulated this in the context of their global mission agency at:
|
3 Actions
|