I’m extremely disappointed to see that WikiJob claims copyright in all user submissions (except, possibly, those in the forums - the ‘Terms and Conditions’ and ‘Contribute’ pages are ambiguous on this). On the ‘Information for Companies’ and ‘Information for Candidates’ pages it is claimed that “WikiJob is a wiki - an open source website”, in the ‘Terms and Conditions’ the term “open-content” is used - well, it benefits from using an open source Content Management System, and the source code for the pages can be viewed and edited on this website, but this would not meet the most common definitions of Open Source.
Common practice elsewhere is for submissions to be given with a perpetual, non-exclusive licence to reproduce the content, with copyright remaining with the writer. (It appears that WikiJob may be trying to say this in regard to forum submissions, but as mentioned above this is by no means clear.) Creative Commons and similar licences are widely used to enable and control what may be subsequently done with the content. Alternatively, some projects specify release into the Public Domain.
Contributors should take note of the fact that not only are they forbidden from submitting the same content to any other site, publication, etc (since the copyright has been assigned to WikiJob), the right to view it may be taken away at any time - for example by introducing subscriptions (“Such licence is revocable by WikiJob at any time without notice”).
To be charitable, it may be that the originators of the site have not thought about this. I’m sorry to say, though, that this is not the way it appears - the impression is that some buzzwords have been thrown in to appear modern and attractive, either without an understanding of what they mean, or with the cynical intention of misleading the casual and unwary. (Please note that I am not making a judgement either way.)
I’d be interested to see what the originators of the site have to say on the matter, and what contributors think about it. In my opinion, it’s fine to make everything proprietary (though it’s not in the spirit to which the site lays claim), but it is most certainly not ok to misrepresent yourself as is currently the case.
In the meantime, I suggest that the site’s authors look up some definitions of “open source”. (I’m forced to assume that the site’s authors are responsible for this claim because pages do not have a viewable revision history - this is a major disadvantage, as it is one of the key ways of assessing how reliable information in a wiki is.)
While I’m complaining, two other things:
The link to the ‘Terms and Conditions’ is unobvious - it only appears as a subpage of ‘About Us’ when that page is selected, but is not in the page content and the design means that the link in the sidebar is well below the bottom of the page body. A fairly standard place to put a link to the T&Cs is at the bottom of every page, where the copyright notice appears - this would make it much easier to find.
The videos on the site - for example on the ‘Information for Companies’ and ‘Information for Candidates’ pages should not be set to play automatically - it is extremely irritating when a page (perhaps opened in the background) causes a user’s computer to start making sounds without them telling it to, and with absolutely no indication that this will happen. Not only is this poor usability design, in the context of the site it is unprofessional - people may be viewing it in the office, for example.
This post is offered as constructive criticism. I’ll be interested to hear others’ views.