Reading Notes, Week 12

Weblogs: Their Use and Application in Science and Technology Libraries

The article helpfully begins its description of a weblog, which is, simply, a blog. This makes me think, though, how much more confusing upcoming technology really is. Without clear and definite terminology, it only serves to be more difficult to educate the public about new technology. Sometimes I think those "in the know" forget about that.

Anyway, much of the article was common knowledge for a lot of us, I'm sure, at least since we've begun blogging. For example, most of us know by now that a blog works as something of a personal journal and that our entries, if we desire, can be archived (106). We also know that they can have great success (106). What isn't so clear is the history (107). A lot of us may have been keeping up with the advances in blogging for the past decade, but I've only been blogging since about 2004 or so, although I have been using involved in online communites prior to that.

Basically, this was a good introduction for those who have only an elementary knowledge of computers, blogging and blogging software. There are some terms referred to that I was unaware of, but it took very little time or effort understand them. Most of the meanings could be inferred. I do wish some of the prior articles we have read were only this challenging.



Using a Wiki to Manage a Library Instruction Program: Sharing Knowledge to Better Serve Patrons

The explanation of the wiki was pretty straightforward and there was little confusion as to what the author meant, mainly because I, along with everyone else in class, has used one. If it's not Wikipedia, then it's likely the course wiki for LIS 2000 or another specialized wiki. For instance, I like to read Thomas Pynchon, and I often have to consult a wiki (given the nature of his work) run by fans and Pynchon scholars in order to understand the references and context of his novels

What I really liked to read, since I've never bothered to try and set up my own wiki, is section on "making your own wiki." Maybe I'll try it now.




Creating the Academic Library Folksonomy: Put Social Tagging to Work at Your Institution

Arch is correct with the assumption that most of current literature on the interest is, in fact, now on the internet. The reasons are obvious, I suspect, because 1) if you're discussing the internet, then the internet would be the obvious place to publish your finding and 2) the development of the internet is increasing so quickly that by the time literature is published on paper, it's already become dated.

Social tagging is a good method for people to reach what they want, but everyone has to contribute in order or it to work. While we've all agreed on the language we using (more or less), some users will have slight discrepancies on a meaning. Others might try a more specific search, while some will begin their searches on a broader level. So, it's important that a large population contributes so as to cut down on these problems. There is, however, a risk to open contributions. Says Arch, "[t]here are, of course, a few risks and issues to consider when implementing social tagging in your library, especially if the site is open for all library patrons to update. One is the wonderfully named spagging, or spam tagging. Users with bad intentions can tag unsuitable sites for their own profit or simply to create havoc." It'll be interesting to observe what direction social tagging goes in.



How a Ragtag Band Created Wikipedia

This 11 minute recording (I listened to the audio; didn't watch the video) was pretty interesting. Jimmy Wales, the founder of Wikipedia, gives a talk about how he and some developers made the website into a reality. As a frequent user (and, by the way, well-aware of both it's faults and benefits), I held a special fascination Wales's presentation.

Wikipedia runs on donations from the public; important, I think, since it is also open source. This is truly a public collaboration and illustrates the appeal of the website. Wales points out the common surprise, and it was a surprise to me, that only 1/3 of the traffic is to the English version, which comprises 600,000 articles out of the 2,000,000 total. It is a truly global website and one of the top fifty in use. This is particularly fascinating because, as Wales points out again, it runs on comparatively very little money to, say, the New York Times, which is a huge corporate organization, and, yet, has less users.

Of course, there's the question of "how good is it?" Wales claims that it's pretty good but, of course, not perfect given its chaotic system. Part of the reason it works is that most people understand the need for neutrality, which Wales insisted upon from the beginning, and, as he points out, that doesn't necessarily equate to the truth, which, of course, can differ from person to person depending on the entry or idea. "Right v Left" problems are not that big of an issues, probably because of the fact that those engaging in that debate are asked to leave the community. The vast majority of the "community" is comprised of 600-1,000 dedicated members, not the controversial anonymous users, who only make up about 18% of all edits. In my opinion, most of the erroneous claims are probably edited by the dedicated members or members like me, those with a username and who care about Wikipedia's veracity but infrequent with their edits.

Overall, I think Wales did a decent job in clearing up the issues or problems with Wikipedia, particularly with idea of neutrality, but I wanted a little more detail in some areas and wished the talk could have been longer. Hopefully, most people would come away believing that Wikipedia is usually reliable, impressively so, but also understand why it isn't appropriate to use it as a source.



Postscript: Earlier I could not access the second and third articles via the online syllabus, and so I I did not post any notes (but mentioned my efforts). Thanks to Jake's comment, I was able to access them via Course Documents on Blackboard today, 11/22. Keep in mind, though, that my original notes were posted on Thursday.