Well it is a wiki world we live in these days. For better or worse, wikis (and blogs) are popping up on just about any topic conceivable. Some are useful, and some are not. Isn't this true, too, of the old fashioned websites? As with everything, one wiki might be wonderful and helpful and accurate, while another may be a total waste of time and disk space. Regardless, it takes a village to create a wiki.
First I looked at Princeton Public Library's wiki. Nicely done as far as organization and navigation - one could get from the wiki to their virtual library or catalog as well as other sites easily. I especially like the fact they include up front a FAQ - someone just hitting this page out of the blue might not understand immediately it's reason for being.
I also looked at Bull Run's wiki. Although hosted on the same site (pbwiki.com), there's a world of difference between the two. It seems like Princeton is limiting their focus to reviews, whereas Bull Run takes entries on a variety of topics. Sorry, BR, but I like to see a little organization when I'm reading something on the web. Sure, one never knows what fun tidbit one might find (like a link to a color generator), but it's a bit too schizophrenic for my taste!
So to what areas of libraries do wiki's lend themselves? Certainly one in which collaboration is prevalent, and opinions are good enough. Wiki's are not places where I'd assume everything I read is accurate. So I don't expect to find 100% accuracy, but I do expect to find a variety of opinions and flavors on a topic. Due to this, I would say that recommended reading lists are ideal for a wiki. Nobody's opinion on a book they've read can be wrong! and the more opinions and books read - the better!
one thing I would like to see in a library recommended reading wiki: links from the books read to items in the catalog - where possible.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment