Case Studies: one wiki, two wiki, good wiki, bad wiki.

I've grouped these into two groups as some invited contributions and some did not permit it - I felt like this was a significant factor in defining the wikis (unless I've completely missed something and just couldn't figure out how to edit on the "Internal wikis").

Internal wikis
Looking at the Bull Run wiki, the SJCPL wiki and the USC wiki, I think they must have been established as wikis for internal collaborative development reasons? This is sort of stated on the SJCPL Subject Guides as the EDIT button has "librarians only" added. This site has the feel of a wiki as it resembles Wikipedia in design & layout, however acts as a website to its users as they are not able to contribute themselves, but only use the information provided. I do think that this is a good use of a wiki as it allows for multiple librarians to work together to create the subject list without the same need to try and moderate comments. The subject guides, however, could likely be enriched if users were also encouraged to contribute. Additionally, a statement to explain the site and its goals would benefit users.

Both the Bull Run and USC wiki seem to look and largely function as a website (albeit not a really well-designed one). They have little resemblance to a wiki - if they do allow editing, they don't advertise it and I couldn't find it. As a wiki, they can be modified more readily than a website and multiple people can have access. As with the SJCPL wiki, this certainly has advantages internally, however I would question whether it is the best solution?

"Open" wikis
These are wikis that allow and encourage contribution and editing from users (whether users are required to regtister or not): PPL's BookLoversWiki, Butler WikiRef, BizWiki and the Wyoming Authors Wiki. All of these wikis except BookLoversWiki do well to explicitly state that contribution is welcome and explain what they are all about right on the main page. On the BookLoversWiki, this informaiton is available in the FAQ section. This is important to ensure that users understand how the wiki works.

All four of these wikis provide some sort of index to the content, although the organization offered by BookLoversWiki and WikiRef are the easiest to navigate. A significant con of Butler's Wiki Ref is its lack of a search function (the site tells me that I can use the search box on the top left....but I don't see one there....could you guys see one?). There is some variation in the appearance and design of these sites, and I imagine this would encourage or discourage participation. WikiRef is by far the most amateur looking site. BizWiki is not especially attractive to use, but is in a familiar Wikipedia format. I think that WAW and BookLoversWiki are both well-designed and appealing. The "featured review" or "featured article" that is included on the BizWiki and BookLoversWiki are great not only to alert users to good content, but also to give users some sense of what the content is at a glance.