(Edit: This post was originally titled "Chim, Chim, Cher-ee, Wick, Wick, Wiki", but I thought it didn't quite flow)
Wiki is such a fun word to say, and if said over and over, it sounds a lot like a record scratching. Wikis, essentially collaborative encyclopedias, are great. The most popular wiki, Wikipedia, I’ve used quite often. However, outside of reading it when it shows up on my Google searches, I haven’t really explored Wikipedia or any of the other wiki sites much. So, I decided to change that.
Wiki is such a fun word to say, and if said over and over, it sounds a lot like a record scratching. Wikis, essentially collaborative encyclopedias, are great. The most popular wiki, Wikipedia, I’ve used quite often. However, outside of reading it when it shows up on my Google searches, I haven’t really explored Wikipedia or any of the other wiki sites much. So, I decided to change that.
First, I wanted to see what other specialized wiki sites I could find. There is actually a website called Wikia that hosts a lot of different specialized wikis and it makes it very easy to find them. While browsing in the Entertainment category, I found a wiki devoted exclusively to one of my favorite shows – Glee (http://glee.wikia.com/wiki/Glee_TV_Show_Wiki). Compared to Wikipedia, the Glee Wiki has much more information about characters and other aspects of the show. One thing I really like, that Wikipedia does not have at all, is an extensive write-up about the character’s relationships to each other, so I can easily see the rise and fall of a couple on the show that I follow. I like the idea of a specialized wiki, because while this information would be considered to extraneous for a general encyclopedia like Wikipedia, it’s perfect here because fans of the show want this much information.
Another cool specialized wiki site I found is called StrategyWiki (http://strategywiki.org/wiki/Main_Page). I’m a big fan of video games, although they seem to be getting harder, longer, and more complicated as technology becomes more advanced. StrategyWiki, as the website says, is “a collaborative and freely-licensed wiki for all your video game strategy guide and walkthrough needs! The guides here can be edited by anyone.” To me, this is a great example of how Web 2.0 is improving on Web 1.0 technology. There’s another gaming site I used to frequent called GameFAQs, which also contained strategy guides for various games. The downside, however, is that they could only be published by one or two people. There was no central repository where anyone could edit. So, the downside was that you’d have a lot of people start a guide, but not necessarily be able to finish or edit it because of various factors. StrategyWiki allows multiple people to collaborate on one guide, so that if one person has to drop out, the whole project is not ruined.
I found a sandbox wiki and had fun playing around and making edits to that, as well. I think the idea of being able to contribute to something on the internet gives you a sense of importance. However, I think I will continue to be more "passive" when it comes to online reading - I will probably read more far than I will edit. But it's nice to know that I can be a part of something.
I found a sandbox wiki and had fun playing around and making edits to that, as well. I think the idea of being able to contribute to something on the internet gives you a sense of importance. However, I think I will continue to be more "passive" when it comes to online reading - I will probably read more far than I will edit. But it's nice to know that I can be a part of something.
There are downsides to wikis, too. While they can be edited by anyone, this is also their drawback. The updates are instant, and we hope that the person making these changes is making updates that they believe to be factual. However, there is no way to check, and even if the edits are removed quickly, they can still be seen by someone else and interpreted as truth. While exploring Wikipedia, I found that I can see an entire article’s history and see what updates were made and why. The article “The King’s Speech” had over 100 edits on February 28 alone. That’s quite a lot of edits!
I think – overall – wikis are good for the internet. I can definitely see a library incorporating this, either for internal use or for everyone to see, based on what they want their patrons to know. It's also much easier to edit and maintain a wiki than it is to create a web page from scratch.
I just think it’s important to remember, especially as librarians, that while wikis are good to get a "general idea" of a topic, not everything in them can simply be interpreted as fact. We need to always make sure we check the sources and even do research outside of Wikipedia to make sure that we can give a confident answer. But wikis can be a great place to not only go to for information, but to contribute as well. In my opinion, they are one of the most valuable things to come out of Web 2.0!
I just think it’s important to remember, especially as librarians, that while wikis are good to get a "general idea" of a topic, not everything in them can simply be interpreted as fact. We need to always make sure we check the sources and even do research outside of Wikipedia to make sure that we can give a confident answer. But wikis can be a great place to not only go to for information, but to contribute as well. In my opinion, they are one of the most valuable things to come out of Web 2.0!
No comments:
Post a Comment