Wikis and making full use of them

The Bull Run Library wiki seemed more like a website promoting the library's programs and less like a collaboration open to all people. I didn't see any contributions by the public. It seemed very controlled, which at first seems contrary to the idea of wikis, but I suppose it shows you can use the technology to a fuller or lesser extent to match your intention. But, I wouldn't want to offer something new and exciting and then turn it into the same old thing you've already got going somewhere else.

A similar lack of collaboration is evident with the subject guides from St. Joseph's library. I clicked on the discussion tab for several of the guides and there were no discussions. That means that the original documents were never edited by anyone. If these guides exist as discrete finished entities, why not just put these guides on the library's website? I also noticed there is a restriction limiting editing to librarians.

Organizations are justified in making the technology suit their needs. But it does seem like these libraries are using this technology for the sake of being able to boast that they are using new technology more than for its actual advantages. Why use a collaborative content tool when there is no collaboration going on?