Ok, this is the point where I have to admit that 2.0 has to be applied selectively. I like the idea of wikis, but the concept has major flaws.
For something like Wookieepedia a wiki is great. It's allows for the vast spread of knowledge concerning an aspect of popular culture to be accumulated and accessed. Much of the info that's given is not readily available from one source, and a wiki allows for it to be gathered together. I can also see the use of a wiki for a collaborative project within a workplace, as long as the changes, and who made them, can be tracked.
Wookieepedia, however, is an unofficial site that carries very little real authoratitive weight. If someone garners inaccurate information from it then the potential for harm is very minimal. The same cannot be said for sites that convey official information and are considered to be authoratitive, such as libraries. Wikis, when applied to library sites, need to be applied selectively and only to those parts of a library's site that convey subjective information, such as book reviews. Even then it must be made clear that the information presented is part of a wiki.
Although wikis are useful, the potential for abuse is extremely high if they are not monitored carefully. Yes studies have been conducted on the accuracy of Wikipedia, but that is a site which can afford to conduct rigorous monitoring of its information. It does not account for the wikis that do not conduct such monitoring.
If it is monitored carefully, then wikis could be used very well for reviewing library material and their usefulness. They could also be used for subject guides and bibliographies used by the clients. A client is very likely to find material, not otherwise mentioned, that's useful for a particular topic.
I suppose my point is that wikis are great if they're carefully monitored and applied. If that's done then they would be great in letting clients feel as if they are involved in the library. Here endeth the rant.
2 comments:
I think there is also a need as an organisation to determine what types of information belong on the official website / official space and what types of information belong in collaborative spaces (ie. blogs and wikis). There are some good examples in local government eg. North Sydney www.northsydney.nsw.gov.au has both types of spaces and they live on different domain names and are connected by links.
As for the monitoring / history of changes in wikis - even for the small free we have set up for this course we have both of those features in place... they are essential features as you point out.
Mylee (PLS)
Interesting points Helene – there are definitely issues surrounding wikis as public spaces of collaboration. And even wikipedia is constantly monitored for sabotage. I agree with Mylee, that there should be some places for public collaboration, as well as places for private collaboration (or authorised collaborators).
I've come to the conclusion that it's really important to have different formats/spaces for different purposes. I love blogs because they capture information as it happens – I like the immediacy and the way that discussions can arise using the comments. Wikis, however, are more useful for capturing information in a more documented/systematic/organised way - excellent for small groups to collaborate on projects and collate information relating to a particular subject. But yes, there is definitely an element of trust involved when using wikis.
Post a Comment