In a May 2007 article in American Libraries entitled Subject Guide 2.0, Meredith Farkas extols the virtues of wikis for the library world. She notes two major wikis that have been successful in the past, the Ohio University Business Librarian's Biz Wiki @ www.library.ohiou.edu/subjects/bizwiki and St. Joseph County Public Library Subject Guide. Both have been successful in using Wikis to impart information to their patrons. Staff members are allowed to add and edit information while patrons are allowed to make comments.
i really enjoy wikis as they offer a standardized, intelligent format for browsing. Yet, as Farkas points out, "Many libraries would worry about people adding inappropriate content, but wikis do not have to be open to everyone." The irony is that, many, like Wikipedia, are available for anyone to edit. This allows for anyone and everyone to add content, without being prejudice against people based on age, race, etc. i consider this strategy to be a very enlightened philosophy. The really amusing part is that so few people actually consult those resources, most people wouldn't even consider editing them. Those odd people who do somehow manage to feel important enough to edit a wiki usually are only interested in correcting information they totally cannot live with. Obviously for network security issues, one should use a firewall and the same goes for net traffic on a server. You wouldn't want to inspire a DDOS by making your site less secure. It's also a good idea to have a "write the random letters in the box to confirm" to avoid getting spam bots from destroying your blog.
In the same vein, allowing only registered users to post and edit a wiki can quickly alleviate spamming. Farkas seems to worry about people posting inappropriate or irrelevant material, but if one is worried about registered users posting that sort of thing it means that staff members and Board members can't string two sentences together... obviously that's not happening. So the point is: why not use a real website? What makes this different from putting files on a network drive? If you can't trust your Board and staff to post professional, accurate information, than just don't use a wiki.
1 comment:
I am a teacher and I support wikis. How weird is that? To my knowledge, I have never looked on wikipedia and found incorrect information. That does not mean that incorrect information does not exist on wikipedia. But, that can be said for anything on the web. My students can use wikipedia, but they cannot use ONLY wikipedia. They get into a habit of only using the sites they know, and I am trying to get them to expand their knowledge base. I can totally see how a wiki would be a valuable tool for libraries. In fact, wikis are just a valuable tool. Some of the teachers in my hallway are absolutely AGAINST wikipedia. I always just roll my eyes and walk in the other direction... aren't I a rebel?
Post a Comment