Welcome to the latest installment of 23 Things, in which our heroine finds herself awash in wikis...
Just to put it out there, I actually like Wikipedia! And horror of horrors, I've actually even recommended that patrons use it! (Gasps and much shaking of fingers from the audience ensue)
It's a good source, really - maybe not 100% trustworthy, but come on, what source really is? EVERYthing has a bias - some of them are just more obvious than others. And really, I think there are more controls behind the scenes in Wikipedia than that "you know it, you edit it" reputation that's developed. Don't believe me? Then visit this page for what Wikipedia is NOT, and you'll see just how much "law and order" is in the background there.
Now, I do warn people (when I suggest that they might want to check Wikipedia out) just what Wikipedia is - and I always tell them that it isn't generally acceptable as a citable source. What is it good for? Getting a quick handle on a topic you don't know much about and a few (usually) good links to help you get started on a research project.
I think the most interesting (from my desk here at the library) potential application of wikis is the possibility of reader generated book reviews - I think it would be really cool if we could add those user generated reviews (or at least access to them) into our catalogs. Princeton PL's site is a great example of how good those reviews can be.
One thing I did notice about the wikis is the very 'consistent' look that a number of them have - it's like everyone saw Wikipedia and said, "Yep, I like it!" Is that a good thing? Well, it does create an atmosphere of familiarity, but some of them don't feel very well branded... I want my wiki to look like my wiki, not everybody elses'. Maybe that consistent look is important, though - but I doubt it.
I think that the Bull Run Library wiki is a little deceptive - OK, technically, I guess it is a wiki, but if only one person is allowed to edit it, is it really what we think of as a wiki? If there's no collaboration and it's just set up that way because it's an easy way to web-author, I'm not sure I'm willing to call it a wiki. Sure, wiki is supposed to be "fast-fast", but I think that that definition has really evolved to imply some sort of collaboration, even if it's limited to a specific (or small) group (and one person does not a group make). I'm also a bit concerned with this line: "This wiki is not sponsored by nor associated with the library system, it is maintained by one library patron." -- Hmmm... just how comfortable with that statement are you? I can tell you that it makes me a little nervous.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment