Wikid

Wikis: wicked or wicked?    Upon learning about wikis this week, I find that it is a great tool, but I have some reservations as well. I am still weighing the pros and cons. Wikis can be compared to blogs in that anyone can create a page and publish. The major difference is that comments aren’t posted to the original post, but edits are made. This is quite a new concept for me. I did not fully understand how Wikipedia worked exactly. I had assumed that there is stricter governance and did not realize that a conflict occurs among the Wikipedia community.  

I think it is common to feel a sense of violation when one’s work has been changed or cut and replaced. Some people can have stronger opinions and beliefs and utmost confidence in their own point of view.  Some people may find it more difficult to participate and collaborate in a wiki environment. When people are very confident in their own perspectives and have very strong points of views, it can definitely get in the way as is the case in the readings with Wikipedia. In the case of Wikipedia, many editing wars occur and many of it is not even for the sake of attempting to share ‘truth’, but just for the sake of disruption. The open concept of wikis can be considered a bit anarchical and can lead to many abuses.

Abuses will always occur, with or without the reins of governing policies. What I find truly interesting about wiki communities is that, despite of, or perhaps because there is no overarching governing party, the responsibility is assumed by those in the community. Users take it upon themselves to not only edit honest mistakes, but to clean up deliberate violations. It is like a self governing community.

Wikipedia co-founder Larry Sanger left the free online encyclopedia to develop another one. A different kind. I am curious as to the developments he is involved in at Digital Universe: an online encyclopedia that is an amalgamation of a wiki and “traditional reference work.” The idea is to compile an encyclopedia that has professional and academic credit where the public is welcome to contribute under the auspices of recognized experts. Real names must be used so as to give credit where credit is due. This is a very interesting idea. I find that it does take away from the public as many may feel daunted and discouraged contributing. On the other hand, it could be a successful collaboration of experts and the public.

 ----------------------------- Wikis in Libraries 

From the readings, it seems as though wikis are particularly useful for planning library events, compiling conferences and collaborating on team projects. I found Brian Lamb’s article very interesting. He suggests using wikis as a medium for writing instruction to teach students how to “write for public consumption” and as a tool to introduce and foster network literacy.

Wikis can provide libraries with a better sense of their community and learn from their patrons. Patrons can contribute content that librarians may not know very much about. Perhaps a library wishes to set up a cultural or multicultural event at a festival or at the library where there will be food and music. Who would be better to contribute information such as what music, food and advertisements to arrange than the community contributing to a wiki.

A fun idea that came to mind when thinking of possible ways to engage younger patrons is a story writing activity where patrons could work on a project such as writing a short story. It is like that game where one person would write a paragraph, then pass the paper on to someone else who would continue or do some editing to the previous entry for a smoother transition in the story.

 -----------------------Case Studies 

In the case studies, there are a variety of wikis such as discipline resource related wikis, subject guides and community event news and notices. I particularly liked the Book Lovers Wiki at the Princeton Public Library. The project is such a great idea which led to the even greater idea of incorporating patron reviews into the catalogue.