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.

Thoughts on Wikis

Wikis seem to me, to be ideal for communicating information. As Schiff points out, they are “perfectly configured to be current”. The ease of update and opportunity for multiple authoring and editing seem to make wikis an ideal place to publish information that needs to be current or come from various sources.

Before delving into this week’s information, I was really only familiar with the idea of using a wiki as it applied to collaborative work between employees working on a common project. I had no idea it was such an easy thing to set up and start using…I am surprised that it is not more commonly used, but I would venture a guess that most people are simply not aware of the possibilities.

I think it is certainly interesting to note Lamb’s statement that wikis are ego-less. This has interesting implications in our copyright-intense/intellectual-property world.

Wandering just a bit off topic....I am interested in reading this book:

Wikinomics: How Mass Collaboration Changes Everything

Has anyone read it? Thoughts? Is it any good? Relevant?

The authors have even created a wiki called The Wikinomics Playbook in the hope that “this book will transcend its physical form to become a living, real-time, collaborative document, co-created by leading thinkers.”* Their viewpoint is definitely corporate, however, they are tapping into the social software phenomenon…interesting. I wonder if some of their business ideas would translate well to Not-for-Profits too...?

* quoted from “Introduction to the Book” from http://www.wikinomics.com/book/

Great ideas for wikis in libraries

I think the some of the best examples of how libraries can use wikis (beyond any internal collaboration with co-workers) are Farkas’ suggestions that wikis be used for community information and catalogue annotations.

With a user population that is likely familiar with sites like Amazon.ca that support user comments, adding reviews, links, and book comments to a catalogue record would enrich the patron’s searching capabilities. It would be great to received “if you liked this one, try this one” recommendations from other patrons who love the same books as you do. A patron may even come to recognize one or two users with similar tastes and follow their recommendations closely. This could be a great place for librarians to provide reader’s advisory as well. Hmmm….

A wiki could very easily become a community hub, where activities and events are posted, as well as cancellations/adjustments, comments, warnings, offers to car-pool to events, etc. To facilitate the compiling of all of this information, completely up-to-date, in one location would be an excellent service for a library to offer. Spam would undoubtedly be a problem and would need to be moderated, but this is true of paper community bulletin boards to a certain degree as well.

I think the an important factor in the success of such a wiki would be in ensuring that it was somewhat aesthetically pleasing, as well as organized and navigatible for users. As Lamb points out that wikis' traditional ugliness and lack of explicit organization often turn users off.