In general, Wikipedia has been a useful tool in helping me understand a topic. Typically one or more of the following situations occurs when I use it: 1) if I need an introduction to an unfamiliar topic. I find it useful to get an overview of the subject a hand. Often I get enjoy the multiple perspectives I receive on a particular entries. 2) I need a source to refer a person to or have it as a referral link to (e.g. from a post in electronic forum or an email). 3) As a way to refresh my memory on a topic. 4) To get an understanding of how a subject would look to a beginner or laymen, when I am knowledgeable on that particular Wiki entry.
I decided to look Library 2.0 and Web 2.0 again to refresh my memory, because the my first session weekend class of LIS 753 Internet Fundamentals touched upon it to a great degree (i.e. doing mainly for reason #3). I understand some of the concerns and criticisms of WikiPedia I have heard in library school (e.g. LIS 703) or NPR-> Wikipedia Wins Users and Critics.
However I have developed for a protocol for using Wikipedia. When I use a Wiki, I read an entry for the essences of the topic. I then look for specific details that I can search for to back up the claim. As I am doing this try to keeping in mind if there are any reasons for the entries to be true or false. Specifically I look for terms in the documents, links to other sites, and citations at the references at the end of the article. I try to click on links that interest me and read the references at the end. I also search for terms that appear in Wiki entry via a search engine (e.g. Yahoo, Google, or what ever my browser is set to). By doing this I feel that I can be informed to know what is decent information on a topic and where else to look for more understanding. Therefore I use Wikis as a starting point and as sort of a Cliff’s Note on a topic.
Which brings me back to why I used WikiPedia to look up Library 2.0 and Web 2.0, I felt, “What better way is there to experience a Web.2.0 tool, than to use to look up the subject of Library 2.0. and Web 2.0.?”
So what I found and learned by looking at Library 2.0 and Web 2.0 in Wikipedia, now that I finished my first session of class in LIS 753 with Michael Stephens?
-The Library 2.0 and Web 2.0 seems to be discussed in the terms of tools (i.e. software and internet) and the philosophy/model/principles behind them.
-Library 2.0 doesn’t necessarily a derivative of Web 2.0.
-In general there is a debate between those who favor those who advocate the Library and Web 2.0 and the critics/skeptics of it.
-The contention is focused on the terminology, definition, image, market, and seemingly hyped nature of the field. I found it to be mildly annoying to focus energy on the peripheral issues that surround the 2.0s. I to me it seems more sensible to discuss what is actually going on with users (e.g. are they really using and benefiting from it?), how are they making an impact (e,g. business and are paying attention for example to YouTube because of its popularity), what they are concerned about, and what aspect of Library and Web 2.0 is will be important to them-I leave this as an open question to be explored later.
-Even if Library 2.0 and Web 2.0 hype and fluff according to the critics or the next big thing according to advocates, how either make a difference? Do they a difference to the population at large? Most of the people I know don’t even realize what these things are.
-My teacher—Michael Stephens—is well known in the Library 2.0 field. Before I took his class, I knew of him from the reading his blogs at tametheweb.com, references in the Library 2.0 Wiki, and being cited in articles. However, I didn’t make the connection he was my teacher until the end of my first class; I made the connection when I reread the Wiki and explored the links in the entry. How cool is that!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
I too have struggled with the use of Wikipedia in the emerging, but still largely underground world of Web 2.0.
I work at a public library as a Children's Associate which means I help children with their homework almost every day. Many, many, times when confronted with a vaguely familiar topic or one I've never heard of before, my instinct is to go to Wikipedia to find information about this topic to get some handle on it and where to begin looking for information. Children are notorious for being impatient (not that adults aren't, but generally adults will not stand directly behind you, staring over your shoulder, repeating "Did you find something yet?" over and over every 30 seconds). Therefore, having a single site that can offer quiet a bit of information as well as links and a bibliography on such a vast range of topics is very useful.
However, I do worry that if the child went back to their teacher with a print out from Wikipedia that the teacher would be shocked and appalled and would perhaps think twice about recomending that students go to the public library for homework help in the future. I am frankly embarrased to use Wikipedia if anyone is watching me and this seems totally silly.
I think it would be nice if we could think of Wikipedia as our new Google, in that you can type in real language key words and get instant results. It is also "safer" to search in Wikipedia than with Google in respect to searching with children looking over your shoulder. Google can pull up anything at anytime even with the most innocent keywords.
I realize Wikipedia is not really the same as Google-thay are totally different tools but in a very practical sense-how people use Google-it could be a much better choice. Considering that most users(kids always tell me, "Just Google it" no matter what they have asked me to help them find) turn to Google to find information on a any given topic. These same users often have very little understanding of how to evaluate sites and to distinguish an authoritive site from an unreliable site. Wikipedia can function as a much more dependable and reliable first stop for most all informational needs. The truely "one stop shopping" we keep talking about. I think it's very promising and I'm excited to watch it grow and gain respect.
Post a Comment