Let's get it out there up front. I love wikipedia. I would never refer someone to it over the information desk but I use it all the time because it does address topics too little for World Book Encyclopedia or Britannica. For example when you want to learn a little more about Lord Peter Wimsey or the chronological order of the Swallows and Amazons books. Instead of trawling through a number of enthusiastic fan sites you have the information in the clean sparse layout of a wiki. I like the way the library best practice site retained this same format. It would be a great way to lay out a library reference manual or a procedures manual except ... when the server goes down.
The idea of books and reader related wikis is appealing. Especially if the reading community are allowed to add to it and a forum of book discussion ensues, although there are a number of online book forums already in existence that play that role. I would prefer to see reviews and things added to the library catalogue. Then the opac becomes one interactive experience instead of patrons having to look at another page and search another database of ideas.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
I often use Wikipedia as the first port of call for enquiries I know little about (especially when I'm on chat). It is the added entries and references at the bottom of the page that I fund really useful as they often lead you make to sites that are more authoritative than Wikipedia.
I'm sure a survey would uncover a lot of wikipedia users int he library world.
Lynette
Post a Comment