Previously I have said that wikis were Web sites that anybody could edit. I don't like this definition because it seems too shallow and it doesn't capture what is unique about wikis. It almost treats it as a novelty. So here are some other options.

My current preference: Wikis are Web sites that are collaboratively written. I like this because collaboration is really the fundamental quality of a wiki, and it implies eqalitarianism in editing and the absence of strict workflow controls. However, is the following more accurate:

The authors of a wiki come from the wiki's audience. Writers are readers and readers are writers. It is a site in which information is shared among members of a community rather than being broadcast, or published. What makes this so special? Editorial control is taken away from an individual and distributed among the community. The community itself makes editorial decisions - making the editing process more democratic. There are no barriers to sharing information, no onerous approval processes, so that information is dessiminated more quickly. The transparency of the process, and the safety net of being able to roll back changes provides a means of control after the fact. The use of a folksonomy (a way of organizing a site that does not require a centralized, controlled hierarchy affords the possibility of unexpected connections and linkages between ideas that a formal taxonomy would miss.

Of course, not all documents need to be edited in a democratic process. Some document need to be authoritative and secure. One wouldn't store contracts in a wiki, for instance. If you want collaborative editing, use a wiki. If not, use a more traditional content management system. Otherwise, what's the point of "integrating" the two?