The article “Using a wiki to manage a library instruction program: Sharing knowledge to better serve patrons” gave a nice overview of why the author believed that using Wikis libraries was an important thing to do. It also discussed how to make a wiki as well as what you can do with one.
The article “Creating the academic library folksonomy: Put social tagging to work at your institution” discusses how social tagging can be useful in the library. By creating bookmarked lists of sources, one is not only better able find their information, but use it. Libraries such as the University of Pennsylvania are experimenting with tagging, and I am sure that Pitt, being an I-school, will attempt to harness this new technology as well.
Jimmy Wales: How a ragtag band created Wikipedia- I always think that it is interesting to listen to people discuss their views of Wikipedia. After reading some of the comments, it is evident that not everyone trusts this source. I find it interesting that no one seems to question other encyclopedias. Just because they are given an authoritarian name does not mean that they are at all accurate. For all you know, the same people making the Wikipedia pages are writing the encyclopedia pages.
“Weblogs: their use and application in science and technology libraries” also discusses ways that libraries are attempting to extend themselves as a resource to the public. The author suggests that weblogs can be extremely helpful, and a technology that libraries should adopt.
2 comments:
I do get annoyed by the people who, without thinking, hear "Wikipedia" and snap, "Wikipedia is not a valid source!" Sure, I would not cite all Wikipedia articles for a paper. But that doesn't mean it is not useful.
I wouldn't cite a Google search result as a source, but I use it to find useful information all the time. I also use Wikipedia for non-academic things. I wouldn't blindly put all my faith in it, a newspaper, a textbook, or an encyclopedia by itself. I like options.
I read an article once that talked about Wikipedia vs. encyclopedias. It seemed somewhat biased towards Wikipedia, but it pointed out that some studies had observed that Wikipedia articles tended to have around the same accuracy, according to "experts" on the subjects, as encyclopedias. I think it was just a little bit lower, percentage-wise.
That last comment is from me, I was just logged in with the wrong account.
Post a Comment