Having spent more than half my life validating information, I have an innate distrust of wikis. Their very appeal and ease of use and contribution makes them vulnerable to what we might call "hacking" if the same material were on some other kind of website. What's to stop me from adding my name to a wiki list of great mystery authors? Sure, others may see my name and, recognizing it for that of a reader, but not author, of mysteries, delete it. They may even possibly have a few choice words to say about my self-inclusion. In the meantime though, some poor souls will be out there seeking my wonderful (and non-existent) mysterious utterings.
The value of this section for me was seeing what some libraries are doing in the area of wikis. In addition to the ones mentioned in the 23 Things article, the current issue of "American Libraries" includes the Biz Wiki, developed by an Ohio University business librarian. www.library.ohiou.edu/subjects/bizwiki This same article addresses one of my own concerns about inaccurate content being added to wikis by mentioning that wikis can be restricted to a select group of contributors. I think these people might have grown up validating information . . .
1 comment:
I find myself in the odd situation of commenting on my own blog. In my local newspaper this week there appeared an article about how the Wikipedia has been, at times, edited with a biased viewpoint. The article on Exxon was edited to put the Exxon Valdez incident in a more favorable light relative to the mega-oil company. SeaWorld's article was edited to change some information related to their treatment of animals. I startled the cats lounging around the couch with my exclamation of "this is just what I was talking about!" So - see what I mean about the accuracy of information found in wikis?
Post a Comment