LIS 9763

When built around a responsible and committed group of people with a shared purpose, wikis can provide a well-structured, easy-to-use, effective and efficient means of organizing and providing access to prolific amounts of information to a wide array of people. To this end, I think that they hold a lot of value, not only as a tool that brings people together to collaborate, compile, and share knowledge in a “many-to-many” manner, but also as a way to share knowledge in a “one (or some)-to-many” fashion similar to that of blogging and traditional websites.
 
I do not therefore feel compelled to criticize the many libraries that do not allow outside users to tinker with their content, nor do I feel the need to necessarily tear down those that do. Instead, I think it’s necessary to have a broad, open-ended understanding of what a Wiki is and what purposes it can have for libraries and more broadly, while still heeding a number of general “best practices” identified in a number of our readings this week.
 
One (or some)-to-many:
 
Because Wiki software is (in most cases) inexpensive and very easy to use, it seems fitting that a number of libraries have begun using Wikis as a website/ knowledge management tool. The USC Aiken Gregg-Graniteville Library website, the subject guides provided by SJCPL, and the BizWiki are great examples of "one (or some)- to- many" Wikis that allow librarians (and some select others in some cases) to add and edit authoritative content in a structured manner with general ease. If we want to share credible and accurate information with our patrons and/or fellow professionals, standing behind information literacy standards and our professional standing as information specialists more generally, I see no problems with limiting editorial privileges in a wiki and utilizing this tool as such.
 
Many-to-many:
 
In theory, I dislike wikis that can be openly edited (Wikipedia being the obvious example). I like things to be tightly edited, written in a clear, coherent manner, with full and complete sentences and citations as well as acknowledged and authoritative authors.  However, when I put these preferences aside, as a means of gaining general information, I am often surprised at how informative Wikipedia and other similar sites can be (e.g., libsuccess.org). When treated with the critical mindset that acknowledges that there may be errors, gaps and blunders, and thus knowing it’s always best to verify any alleged facts contained therein with a credible source, such sites offer a great starting place for research (note: I have peaked at Wikipedia entries when stumped on a reference question and maintained my dignity), a great place to share professional expertise, and, as Farkas explains, a great place to share such things as conference information.
 
Best practices:
 
I do not feel that I need to go into too much detail here since both Farkas and Suarez did a very comprehensive job compiling a number of things to keep in mind when planning, creating and maintaining a Wiki. A few takeaways I did want to highlight based on my readings this week, however, were the following things:

• If users cannot edit the content in a wiki themselves, they should still have the ability to contact those who do can (e.g., through email contacts displayed on the wiki) in order to offer feedback, comments, and suggestions of content to include or change.

• A Wiki needs someone or a variety of people who are committed to maintaining it, checking for broken links, and following up on any edits that have been made to ensure that they are in step with the rest of the content (in terms of quality, coherence, formatting, and so on). A poor example of this is the Butler WikiRef, which I found to be fairly disorganized, inconsistent and difficult to navigate.

• Be clear with your audience and your contributors about the purpose of your wiki. I appreciated the contributor agreement and disclaimer provided by the Wyoming Authors Wiki, for instance, which explained a) the potential for errors, but also b) the value of the site, and c) its focus and commitments. It seemed to have harmonious levels of commitment, interest, focus, trust and control, which, I think, are essential elements to any successful wiki.