What intrigues me about the Wiki concept is something that goes back to when I was in library school. This was in 1985, the dawn of the computer age. I wanted to create a database to make it easier to retrieve those ephemeral bits of reference trivia that end up in printed notebooks or card files at the reference desk.
At the time, database programs were extremely structured. If you weren’t putting together a list of names and addresses they didn’t work for you. About five years later, while at my first job, I discovered the askSam free-text database. This worked. It would do full-text searching and you did not have to structure your entries at all. The drawbacks included having only one license so only the person using the reference desk computer could search, add to or update the database. It also had to be manually backed up onto disks. (This was pre-networking.) Perhaps the biggest drawback was that while the software was simple to use, it did require an instruction sheet that was a couple pages long. A wiki should be easy enough to use that no one will be put off from either reading or editing it.
At my current job, we plan to use a Wiki for a ready reference database. This would be used only by the people working at the information desk because it would contain insider information such as contact people in other departments.
Depending on how things work out, we may also try to consolidate our pathfinders, frequently asked questions, and other like materials that are now scattered around our Web site, into a single Starting Points for MN Legal Research wiki. It would probably look something like the St. Joseph Library subject guides wiki, especially the page on Taxes. I don’t know if we would open up editing capability beyond our staff. There are some subjects that would invite trouble. See our FAQ on Credit River for an example (
http://www.lawlibrary.state.mn.us/askfaq.html#credit ).
We are also considering creating a library-wide wiki to replace our departmental procedures manuals. This would allow procedures that cross departments to accessible by everyone. Albany County’s wiki looks a like a typical procedure manual. It is a little weird to see this kind of material available to the world. (As the rule on the first page notes, no passwords.) I wonder how it affects procedures knowing that your patrons can read them, too. If someone wants to challenge a policy, at least everyone will be starting the discussion on the same page, so to speak.
For this Thing, I edited the 23 Things wiki. It was easy. I love that. Whether that same ease makes Wikipedia an unreliable resource is another question. I would agree with teachers who ban their students from citing it, not necessarily for its “wikiality” (see,
http://www.comedycentral.com/videos/index.jhtml?videoId=72347 ) but because it is too easy. You don’t learn anything about research if you only use one source. (In my generation, it was the Britannica.)
Of all the 23 things, so far, the wiki promises to be the most immediately useful.
Posts
