My husband told me a shocking story last night!! He and his colleagues were debating whether America’s favorite ice cream topping is called “jimmies” or “sprinkles.” One of his colleagues (and I should mention that they’re all early thirties and under) said, we’ll check Wikipedia after lunch. My husband responded, we can’t trust that, people will edit the article to meet their opinion. His colleague was shocked. He asked what my husband meant only to learn that anyone can edit pages in Wikipedia. After lunch my husband showed his colleague how to edit the page on “sprinkles” in Wikipedia.

Most articles (or blog posts) I read usually assume that people know that Wikipedia is a wiki and a wiki is a page that anyone can edit - but somehow that fact has still escaped some of our patrons. How do we educate people like this? Of course they were just looking up something for fun - but what if it was something more important??

I mention this because Wikipedia has been in the news (again) lately. Today I got this article from the New York Times pointed out to me and a earlier I got this one.

Technorati Tags: wikipedia

Well - wikis are social - but what other title could I give this post? Turns out that WetPaint has added some new social networking features to it’s wiki package.

(Seattle, Wash. – March 10, 2008) Wetpaint, the leading social publishing platform with a network of over 750,000 social sites, today unveiled a complete set of social networking features to supercharge creation of content on its award-winning wiki service that now unifies the two things people love to do online – socialize and share content with others.

With the addition of such new features as a Friends Network, Custom Member Profiles, a What’s New site activity dashboard and Friends Feeds, Wetpaint has created the first truly integrated social publishing platform, empowering anyone to easily create a completely social and collaborative website.

Sounds pretty interesting - something to keep in mind before you set up your next wiki. Learn more here.

Technorati Tags: wikis, wetpaint

Judith Seiss points us to Veropedia.

Veropedia "is a collaborative effort by a group of Wikipedians to collect the best of Wikipedia's content, clean it up, vet it, and save it for all time. These articles are stable and cannot be edited." It is not competing with Wikipedia"”they "prefer to think of [themselves] as a meta-layer, highlighting the best that Wikipedia has to offer." There are two types of links, green (already verified) and blue (not verified, directing you back to Wikipedia). It contains over 4500 articles there now. Very interesting.

Would you use this over Wikipedia? I know that a lot of librarians are skeptical about articles on Wikipedia and that author David Weinberger thinks it’s an amazing example of how the third order of order has been successful - does this mean that Veropedia is something that could keep both audiences happy?

My guess - probably not. Why? Because Veropedia are still not “experts” in the traditional sense. For me? I think it’s great and shows that the people out there creating and editing content care about what they’re doing and that’s awesome!

Technorati Tags: wikipedia, veropedia

I presented with Sarah Theimer from Syracuse this morning. Sarah talked about how they use MediaWiki for keeping track of procedures. She started by asking “Will a wiki work?” and her answer was “Sort of” - my answer is YES!

It was fun to listen to Sarah because a lot of what she said was repetition of what I’ve heard from others. It’s nice to hear that you’re not alone.

She talked about how she was the sole editor of procedures and didn’t want to be anymore - the wiki seemed like the best solution. Her actual comment was that others should be allowed to share in the “pleasure” of editing these documents.

I think that the reason that Sarah has had a harder time that I did at Jenkins is because she was forced to use MediaWiki. While this tool is very powerful and awesome - it’s not easy to learn the syntax or to organize your content in the way that librarians like to. It’s a shame that I didn’t realize how useful our Intranet was going to be - if I had the foresight I would have written it so that it could be released as and open source app for all libraries.

For those of you who want to see my presentation here you go:

Communication 2.0 with Blogs & Wikis
Exlibris Mid-Atlantic Users Group, Rider University, NJ, October 30, 2007

Technorati Tags: ema2007, wikis

I have to catalog a lot of foreign language materials at work - and I speak 1 language (typical American). So I use a tool called Babylon (not a freebie) to help me translate bits of text as I search through OCLC for the right copy.

Well, now the makers of Babylon are trying something new - they have a wiki-dictionary - a wiktionary, a wikitionary … hmmm - anyway they have a new site LingoZ where anyone can add entries to the dictionary. Sounds like a neat idea and helpful for those stranger terms and jargon that we can’t find definitions to elsewhere.

Technorati Tags: dictionary, lingoz, babylon

This is pretty neat. I just learned about WikiMindMap. It’s a tool that lets you browse Wikipedia articles graphically.

Here’s a little search I did for Library.

By clicking the links on the image (were you on the WikiMindMap page) you are brought to the article in question on Wikipedia.

Technorati Tags: wikipedia, wikimindmap

A simple search of published court decisions shows that Wikipedia is frequently cited by judges around the country, involving serious issues and the bizarre "” such as a 2005 tax case before the Tennessee Court of Appeals concerning the definition of "beverage" that involved hundreds of thousands of dollars, and, just this week, a case in Federal District Court in Florida that involved the term "booty music" as played during a wet T-shirt contest.

More than 100 judicial rulings have relied on Wikipedia, beginning in 2004, including 13 from circuit courts of appeal, one step below the Supreme Court. (The Supreme Court thus far has never cited Wikipedia.)

This from the New York Times article entitled “Courts Turn to Wikipedia, but Selectively” (login required).

It goes on:

"Wikipedia is a terrific resource," said Judge Richard A. Posner of the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, in Chicago. "Partly because it so convenient, it often has been updated recently and is very accurate." But, he added: "It wouldn't be right to use it in a critical issue. If the safety of a product is at issue, you wouldn't look it up in Wikipedia."

(emphasis added by me).

This is something we’ve been talking about in classes lately - people will use anything as long as it’s convenient - and easy to use. The validity of sources does not seem to be a concern - and this is a problem. I find it interesting that people have yet to learn from the mistakes made by those before them - but that is the way it is.

Which brings us back to my most recent topic of ranting. A lot of us are trying to come up with ways to keep up with the times - new technology, new spaces, etc etc. What we need to keep in mind while looking in to making all of these changes is how we’re going to make finding the right information easy - because in the end that’s what people seem to care about (well, most people).

[news report found via LibVibe]

Apparently PBWiki has upgraded their WYSIWYG Editor - I didn’t even know that they had one. I just edited my schedule on the CIL wiki and had my first experience with the new and improved editor - and it’s a bit annoying for someone who knows how to code - but I can see how it will be very handy in making PBWiki more accessible to others.

I just found this very interesting article in InformationWeek which predicts the fall of Wikipedia [via Law Librarian Blog].

Wikipedia will fail in four years, crushed under the weight of an automated assault by marketers and others seeking online traffic.

It’s a pretty interesting article - and could very well be true - as spammers and marketers learn to automate edits to the online encyclopedia for their own benefit it’s going to be pretty hard for those of us making edits by hand to keep up with the cleaning.

The Wall Street Journal Online has an interesting email conversation between Jimmy Wales, founder of Wikipedia and Dale Hoiberg, editor-in-chief of Britannica. For those of you who are behind on the encyclopedia debate you can find my other posts here, here and here.

The “discussion” starts with Wales stating:

The strengths include a much greater timeliness, a much more comprehensive coverage, and the wide range of inputs means a good chance at a more balanced and more neutral coverage.

To which Hoiberg replies:

But there is little evidence to suggest that simply having a lot of people freely editing encyclopedia articles produces more balanced coverage. On the contrary, it opens the gates to propaganda and seesaw fights between writers with different axes to grind.

I haven’t had a chance to finish the entire article yet, but it’s worth a look.

Technorati Tags: wikis, wikipedia, britannica

A funny comic to end your day.

Sorry I couldn’t resist.

I’m sure you remember the Nature/Britannica debate back in December of 2005 and March of this year. If you don’t you can read about it here and here.

Well yesterday Tom at Tombrarian posted a link to the response from Nature to Britannica’s claims that their article was not written in a fair manner.

I haven’t finished reading yet - but I can tell this is going to be a good article. Take a look at The Hive published in The Atlantic Monthly. It’s an article about Wikipedia and its history.

Wired News has an article about Wiki.com.

Launched over the weekend, Wiki.com joins the already populous field of do-it-yourself wiki sites, which allow anyone to add and edit content on a specified topic.

In its first day live, visitors have been snapping up subdomains with topical words, like soccer.wiki.com, or common first names.

Currently, anyone can register a subdomain on Wiki.com. Registrants must give permission to allow others to add or edit content on their sites. Gotts envisions making money through keyword advertising at first. He’s also considering letting registrants co-own their subdomains, enabling them to develop popular wiki sites and then sell them.

What I’d like to see is a demo - or something to give me an idea of how it works (without having to sign up for my own site).

Have you seen this video yet? Stephen Colbert on Wikiality. I’ve seen it mentioned too many places to give credit to everyone - but today I saw it on Information Wants to be Free.

Last week was my birthday so I had some time off of work and then some time catching up at work.

I’m also on the board of directors for our township’s adult education program and we’re desperately trying to build onto our class offerings, but unlike the other area night schools, ours is not supported by the school district. So I spent a lot of time yesterday trying to come up with class ideas and finding local businesses we can contact.

Lastly, I was working on moving the LITA National Forum Wiki over to Wetpaint. I’ll be honest, for a few days I was worried I had made the wrong decision. My first shock was that Wetpaint didn’t allow me to see the code for my page. I emailed my contact and he said they wanted to make the site accessible to everyone - which I’m totally for - but I responded by reminding him that almost every WYSIWYG editor I’ve ever used allows you to see the code so that you can troubleshoot. The next shock was that there wasn’t any functionality to add a table - and without the ability to see the code you’re stuck with what you’ve got. So I emailed again and learned that tables will be available within the next couple of weeks.

Despite these two problems, Wetpaint has some interesting functionality. First (although I haven’t tested this out) it has structure. What do I mean? Well, I mention in my article about our Intranet that I wrote our wiki software myself because I wanted to be able to have an organizational structure - this page goes under this page - an understandable site map. Well Wetpaint has that. It also has a menu to all of the pages so that you don’t have to rely on links from one page to another.

So, my first thoughts were “Oh no! What have I done?!” but now I’m going to stick with it. And next time I’ll make sure to play with the product beofre I accept a tempting offer to move everything. There is a ton of potential there - and remember it’s much newer than the other sites out there so it’s still growing.

Please update your links/bookmarks and if you’re attending the conference I hope you participate in this wiki, it will really help a lot of new people who will be attending the conference.

Technorati Tags: lita2006, lita06

If you read my last post you saw that I was a little disappointed that I did the LITA National Forum Wiki before I learned about Wetpaint. Well Chris Kollas from Wetpaint also read that post and has offered to help me move all of the info from pbwiki to Wetpaint so that I can test it out.

At first I didn’t think it was wise, but then I figured only one other person has posted on the current wiki and it probably won’t get really active until closer to October so I took him up on the offer. I will be moving the LITA National Forum wiki over to Wetpaint. It will be a great learning experience for all of us. I’ll keep you all posted.

There is another free hosted wiki option to add to the mix. Wetpaint looks pretty darn slick.

Combining the best of wikis, blogs, and forums, Wetpaint is the canvas where everyone gets a brush. From personal expression to collaboration, Wetpaint empowers you to connect with others on whatever you’re passionate about.

I kind of wish I had read about it before I started the LITA National Forum wiki. I’ll let you know more once I come up with an idea for a site to try on Wetpaint - but for now you can read a thorough review on TechCrunch.

Spead the word! I have set up an unofficial wiki for the LITA National Forum which will take place in Nashville, TN this year.

This will be my first year attending - and presenting - and I feel a little lost with the whole thing. I know that other conference wikis have helped me get organized so I thought I’d take the initiative this time and set up this site to share with everyone.

There’s not much there yet - since I’ve never attended this conference, so if you’re a veteran please contribute and help the newbies like myself!

[update 7-1-06] Wiki moved to another site - read here - and remember I still love PBwiki, I just wanted to try something new.

Technorati Tags: lita2006, lita06

At the beginning of the year I set up my first MediaWiki site. It wasn’t easy to figure everything out - and there is A LOT to figure out. But now that everything is set up I have another problem - no activity.

The wiki site is my collaborative writing site Tag You’re It. The site has been around since 1999 and I’d hate to have to give up on it after such a long time - so if you like writing and have a little extra time, you might want to check it out.

[apology]Sorry for the advertisement, but I know my audience - and most you like to write [/apology]

I guess you could do this with any wiki package - but JotSpot is marketing pages just for your family. With JotSpot Family Site you can:

• Share a family calendar
• See your family on a map!
• Build your family tree
• Create a secure site for your family
• Put all your family recipes in one place
• Plan your family reunion!

What a fun idea.

Learned about from Download Squad.

Back in December there was a lot of news coverage regarding an article in Nature magazine that stated that both Wikipedia and Britannica had a similar number of errors. Well Britannica has replied with a 20 page report (which I have not read all of - for reasons already stated - I’m way behind)

In its December 15, 2005, issue, the science journal Nature published an article that claimed to compare the accuracy of the online Encyclopædia Britannica with Wikipedia, the Internet database that allows anyone, regardless of knowledge or qualifications, to write and edit articles on any subject. Wikipedia had recently received attention for its alleged inaccuracies, but Nature’s article claimed to have found that “such high-profile examples [of major errors in Wikipedia] are the exception rather than the rule” and that “the difference in accuracy [between Britannica and Wikipedia] was not particularly great.”

I don’t know about you - but to me it sounds like Britannica is a little miffed. Apparently they called for Nature to pull the article and Nature has declined stating that “We reject those accusations, and are confident our comparison was fair.”

Technorati Tags: wikis, wikipedia, britannica

I don’t get it! Why is it that everyone is out to get the Wikipedia? Why is it that no one seems to realize that it’s a great invention and is not meant to replace your usual sources of information - but to promote community - and learning for that matter?

How? Well, when I first signed up for Wikipedia I wanted to find some resources about Shelties - I went to the Shetland Sheepdog page only to find that it was sorely lacking. What did I do? I went out and found information to add to the page - information from my breeder, books I had purchased and reliable sites I found. Does this mean that the Sheltie page on Wikipedia is 100% correct? Absolutely not! It means that I took care in editing the page and hopefully others do the same. The Wikipedia should not be your end visit when doing research - it can be a first stop though - someplace to stop and browse and then go off and fact check.

Why is this so hard to understand? Why is it that everything popular and new gets torn to shreds by the media?

The Philadelphia Inquirer has an article in today’s paper titled Rewriting history - with the click of a mouse. It details how aids in political offices are logging onto Wikipedia to alter their candidate’s page.

Hellllooooo! Why is this news?? Politicians rewrite history with money all of the time - but because it’s happening on a popular Internet site it has become another reason why Wikipedia is evil! Of course, I chose this article because the author makes a very good point - one that other articles about this topic leave out:

What is so quaint about all of this manipulation of Wikipedia’s information is that these inside-the-beltway denizens imagine that the voting public makes up its mind about politicians this way. It seems highly improbable that vast numbers of Americans, still unsure which candidate to vote for, visit an online encyclopedia to glean some new nuggets of information to make up their minds. It’s far more likely that they consult psychics and tarot card readers. Or even worse, ABC, CNN, NBC, CBS, and Fox News.

My point exactly!!

Okay I’m done ranting for now.

The unofficial Computers in Libraries 2006 Conference wiki is now up and running.

Tag: cil2006

How did I miss this? If you are in the same boat as me you should check out the LISWiki - I’ll be exploring it in more detail this weekend.