Good To Know
Thursday, May 27, 2010
Wikipedia Launches an FAQ For Librarians
Hat tip: Gary Price at Resource Shelf
Whether you love Wikipedia or hate it -- you need to read this FAQ! (Personally, I'm somewhere in the middle.) My experience is that it's hard to delete an entry anonymously but that it's pretty easy to edit away, once you create a Wikipedia account and log in. This doesn't leave me feeling incredibly secure in the credentials of the community of editors; my cat now has a Wikipedia account.
My Takeaway:
We believe that Wikipedia is an excellent starting point for research, and can be particularly useful for getting a quick and reasonably accessible overview of a particular topic area. We provide a lot of instruments to be compartible with the established citation-standards and it can also be remarkably detailed and comprehensive, particularly in subject areas such as technology and science. But we don't believe that anyone should accept what they read on Wikipedia (or anywhere) uncritically. We encourage readers to explore topics further, by clicking on the article footnotes to go the original information sources or using the further reading recommendations and external links.
Resource Shelf:
"A resource that’s definitely worth knowing about and sharing with colleagues, using in a presentation (if you’re talking to other librarians perhaps a link or handout), or just reading and agreeing or disagreeing with, and perhaps even making changes or corrections you believe are important.
Some of the Questions Asked and Answered:
+ Who owns Wikipedia?
+ How common are mistakes on Wikipedia?
+ Will the people who use my library find material on Wikipedia that’s objectionable, or unsuitable for children?
+ If people ask me whether Wikipedia is an appropriate resource for students and researchers, what do you recommend I say to them?
+ Why do I read sometimes that Wikipedia is closed to outsiders, or resistant to help?
+ Can you point me towards other people’s views on Wikipedia – either supportive, or critical? "
¶ 5/27/2010 0 comments
Whether you love Wikipedia or hate it -- you need to read this FAQ! (Personally, I'm somewhere in the middle.) My experience is that it's hard to delete an entry anonymously but that it's pretty easy to edit away, once you create a Wikipedia account and log in. This doesn't leave me feeling incredibly secure in the credentials of the community of editors; my cat now has a Wikipedia account.
My Takeaway:
We believe that Wikipedia is an excellent starting point for research, and can be particularly useful for getting a quick and reasonably accessible overview of a particular topic area. We provide a lot of instruments to be compartible with the established citation-standards and it can also be remarkably detailed and comprehensive, particularly in subject areas such as technology and science. But we don't believe that anyone should accept what they read on Wikipedia (or anywhere) uncritically. We encourage readers to explore topics further, by clicking on the article footnotes to go the original information sources or using the further reading recommendations and external links.
Resource Shelf:
"A resource that’s definitely worth knowing about and sharing with colleagues, using in a presentation (if you’re talking to other librarians perhaps a link or handout), or just reading and agreeing or disagreeing with, and perhaps even making changes or corrections you believe are important.
Some of the Questions Asked and Answered:
+ Who owns Wikipedia?
+ How common are mistakes on Wikipedia?
+ Will the people who use my library find material on Wikipedia that’s objectionable, or unsuitable for children?
+ If people ask me whether Wikipedia is an appropriate resource for students and researchers, what do you recommend I say to them?
+ Why do I read sometimes that Wikipedia is closed to outsiders, or resistant to help?
+ Can you point me towards other people’s views on Wikipedia – either supportive, or critical? "
¶ 5/27/2010 0 comments
Monday, May 10, 2010
Create a Printed Book From Wikipedia Entries
Create a Printed Book From Wikipedia Entries
So.....
Is this the next big thing? Creating print on demand out of free web content? I can see the attraction...if you are the author of the wiki pages...but otherwise....yikes.
Why would anyone want to do this? As librarians--should this concern us? We talk about authoritative and reliable content, but will this count? Wikipedia prides itself on requring cited sources for its content but what irony! A wiki entry can be improved with new cited sources at any moment--part of its "power of us."
But the irony I see is the notion that a "printed book" somehow trumps the online content. Does this give it more...value?? Are we forgetting that a print item basically goes out of date when it leaves the printing press? In what situations could this possibly be a good thing?
Talk amongst yourselves. ¶ 5/10/2010 0 comments
Why would anyone want to do this? As librarians--should this concern us? We talk about authoritative and reliable content, but will this count? Wikipedia prides itself on requring cited sources for its content but what irony! A wiki entry can be improved with new cited sources at any moment--part of its "power of us."
But the irony I see is the notion that a "printed book" somehow trumps the online content. Does this give it more...value?? Are we forgetting that a print item basically goes out of date when it leaves the printing press? In what situations could this possibly be a good thing?
Talk amongst yourselves. ¶ 5/10/2010 0 comments
