The Army has a good idea. According to the Army Times, the service will soon begin a pilot program to make seven field manuals "wiki-able."
In early July the Army will conduct a 90-day online test using seven existing manuals that every soldier, from private to general officer, will have the opportunity to read and modify in a "wiki"-style environment.
The people who write doctrine say that with things changing so fast in the field, it has been hard to keep the Army's 550 manuals up to date and relevant.
By letting the entire Army update the manuals, they say, more and better information can go out to a wider population of soldiers.
"The reality is that a lot of our doctrine simply has not kept up with the needs of the field, and a lot of the information being used right now is in local area networks being run by units that are deployed," said Clint Ancker, director of the Combined Arms Doctrine Directorate at Fort Leavenworth, Kan.
Unfortunately, in stereotypical Army fashion, they're weighing it down with unnecessary rules and stipulations that will eventually make the new wiki manuals useless--or at least not better than their printed counterparts--because no one will want to take the time to participate.
Those who want to participate will be required to establish a profile at the test site, which is scheduled to be launched in the first week of July. On the site, they will be known by their name, rank and unit.
This is an important bad idea. It's antithetical to what a wiki even is. The whole idea behind a wiki is that ideas are judged on their merit alone--regardless of who's doing the writing. And to facilitate that, less qualified (or, in this case, lower ranking) people who might have good ideas are encouraged to participate. However, when you force people to identify themselves in a forum where they're being asked to critique--or criticize--most lower-level people will either choose not to participate or they'll be considerably less honest with their feedback.
Imagine an auditorium on post filled with 500 recently-returned soldiers of all ranks. A three-star general stands on stage, eyeing the group, and says he wants honest feedback about what worked down range and what didn't. The only thing he asks is that before the soldier gives his feedback, the soldier should stand up and identify himself with his "name, rank, and unit." At this point, of course, seasoned platoon sergeants lean forward in their seats and look down the line at their soldiers.
Does anyone envision an E-4 standing up--without having his suggestion vetted by his chain of command--and giving advice to the general officer and the rest of the BCT?
Me neither. Even though that E-4 might have a great idea.
But this isn't the first time the Army has disallowed individuals from submitting ideas without disclosing their identities. Take this post from an administrator at the USACAC blog directed toward an anonymous commenter named "Critical Realist":
Critical Realist,
Appreciate your input. However, we are attempting to ensure those who participate in this blog either sign in using their name, or sign their posts. This ensures users are in compliance with CAC Blog rule #7:
"All remarks made by military and Army DoD personnel MUST be fully attributable in accordance with the CAC CG's policy memo on blogging."
See? This is counterproductive. I know the military has been attempting to embrace new media and social networking, but here's the deal: Either you embrace it, or you don't. Either open it up to critiques from all sides--anonymous or not--or just go back to doing things the traditional way.
Either way, I think there's a simple solution here: For the new Army manual wikis, require that participants sign in with their Common Access Card (CAC) as a way for site administrators to determine eligibility. Then give soldiers the option of publicly masking how much of their identity others will see. This way, commanders can rest assured that no one will participate who shouldn't be, and soldiers of all ranks, with all types of experience, will feel comfortable offering advice.
Is this a typical way of doing things in a military chain of command? Of course it isn't. But that's the point. |
