For my final post, I’d like to showcase some great examples of public libraries putting wikis into action...
Bull Run Public Library Wiki
http://bullrunlibrary.pbworks.com/
This is a great example of a library using a PBWiki to create an informative site all about their library and its programs. From what I can tell, it looks like this library belongs to a larger library system which has a website, but they had no website of their own. A PBWiki was an excellent choice for quickly and easily creating their own personal webpage.
On the front page, the Bull Run Public Library Wiki has pictures of the library, the library’s hours, details about upcoming book sales, current displays and upcoming programs, and even an embedded WorldCat search bar and an embedded video explaining RSS feeds. On the sidebar there’s a link to an inclusive calendar, and links to pages with information about programs for specific groups such as Adults, Young Adults, and Children. Since so much of the programming information is time sensitive, a wiki is ideal for easily being able to make edits to this information. Nice job, Bull Run.
St. Joseph County Public Library's Subject Guides
http://www.libraryforlife.org/subjectguides/index.php/Main_Page
At first when I saw this wiki, I thought it had something to do with explaining the Dewey Decimal System for patrons, but it’s much more than that. The librarians at St. Joseph County Public Library set up this MediaWiki wiki to provide patrons with, “locally focused information and services to help you find the information you need and want.” Basically, the Subject Guides are resource guides for subjects commonly of interest to this particular library’s patrons, with a focus on local library and community resources. To check out an example, under the “Cooking” subject guide you’ll find a list of the library’s cooking magazine subscriptions, a list of books on starting a career in cooking, links to the local farm market and local cooking classes, recipe sites, and even a staff picked “Recipe of the Month.” Other subject guides include those for Jobs, Legal Information, Local Authors, Community Organizations, Homework Help, Local News, and Arts and Entertainment. The librarians here have really done a nice job of pooling all their information and resources about popular patron topics into one place. A perfect way to use a wiki!
Princeton Public Library’s Book Lovers Wiki
http://booklovers.pbworks.com/Princeton%20Public%20Library
The Princeton Public Library created a unique and interesting use of a PBWiki. The Library was doing an Adult Summer Reading Club, which consisted of adult patrons writing reviews of books they read over the summer. At the end of the summer the reviews were entered in a raffle and the winners drawn received prizes. The librarians here thought it would be a wonderful idea to share all the book reviews they were receiving by posting them online for other patrons to view. A wiki works perfect for a project like this! On the front page the librarians posted a “Featured Review” which they periodically changed. On the sidebar they have an index organizing the reviews by genre like, “Chic Lit” or “Contemporary Fiction,” as well as categories like, “5 Star Review” or “Staff Picks.” These librarians honed in on a an excellent way to use a wiki. Not only were patrons able to share information about books with each other, but it was probably also thrilling to see their reviews posted online. Good idea, Princeton!
Thursday, December 17, 2009
#7 Wikis: Part of Library 2.0
This entry is a review of the article, "Beyond the Library's Walls: Using Library 2.0 Tools to Reach Out to All Users," by J.M. Sodt and T.P. Summey, 2009.
In this article, Sodt and Summey discuss digital tools that can be used as part of the Library 2.0 movement. Library 2.0 refers to the use of Web 2.0 technologies in libraries to help make them more user-centered and collaborative environments (p.98). Sodt and Summey call wikis one of the most popular applications affiliated with Web 2.0. In this article, they list several ways that libraries could use wikis both on the frontlines and behind the scenes to reach out to users and help serve them better. Here are three:
1) Libraries could use wikis as a resource guides for various subjects. These could be created by librarians alone, or in collaboration with their patrons. Individuals could add their own resource ideas, or they could leave comments about resources they had used. Reference staff could also create guides for FAQs or hard-to-answer questions. These could be visible by the public, or on a staff only wiki.
2) Libraries could create a wiki designed to review books and other materials. Librarians could post items and individuals could post reviews and comments about items to help guide other patrons in their selection.
3) Libraries could create an internal staff wiki for storing useful information and communication. Policy and procedural manuals, training resources and documents for employees could be kept online. Multiple copies would then not be necessary and policies and training could be updated or changed in real time. Employees could also use wikis for keeping open communication about ongoing projects, thus eliminating the need for paperwork or a lot of e-mail.
References
Sodt, J. M., & Summey, T. P. (2009). Beyond the library's walls: Using library 2.0 tools to reach out to all users. Journal of Library Administration, 49(1/2), 97-109.
In this article, Sodt and Summey discuss digital tools that can be used as part of the Library 2.0 movement. Library 2.0 refers to the use of Web 2.0 technologies in libraries to help make them more user-centered and collaborative environments (p.98). Sodt and Summey call wikis one of the most popular applications affiliated with Web 2.0. In this article, they list several ways that libraries could use wikis both on the frontlines and behind the scenes to reach out to users and help serve them better. Here are three:
1) Libraries could use wikis as a resource guides for various subjects. These could be created by librarians alone, or in collaboration with their patrons. Individuals could add their own resource ideas, or they could leave comments about resources they had used. Reference staff could also create guides for FAQs or hard-to-answer questions. These could be visible by the public, or on a staff only wiki.
2) Libraries could create a wiki designed to review books and other materials. Librarians could post items and individuals could post reviews and comments about items to help guide other patrons in their selection.
3) Libraries could create an internal staff wiki for storing useful information and communication. Policy and procedural manuals, training resources and documents for employees could be kept online. Multiple copies would then not be necessary and policies and training could be updated or changed in real time. Employees could also use wikis for keeping open communication about ongoing projects, thus eliminating the need for paperwork or a lot of e-mail.
References
Sodt, J. M., & Summey, T. P. (2009). Beyond the library's walls: Using library 2.0 tools to reach out to all users. Journal of Library Administration, 49(1/2), 97-109.
#6 Wetpaint and Google Sites
So, this will be the entry where I tell you about two types of wikis I don't recommend using: Wetpaint and Google Sites.
Wetpaint
Like PBWorks and Wikispaces, Wetpaint is a free, web-based wiki. But if you're interested in making a wiki for your library, your class group project, or anything else remotely serious, I wouldn't recommend this site. Wetpaint's catch phrase is, "Where superfans are superstars." Their main shtick is to host giganto TV show fan wikis, but anyone can sign up and create a free wiki about anything they'd like. No, thanks. Wetpaint wikis are flooded with ads, so much so that it's hard to see anything you actually created, and the entire site ends up looking like a giant pop-up. For a mere $19.95 a month, you can get rid of the sprawling ads, (compare that to Wikispaces $5 removal of much less intrusive ads,) but if you're expecting more than 20,000 views a month, they're going to charge you again. I'll pass. (I might check out their Glee wiki though...)
Google Sites
As I was doing this project, I wondered, where's Google on the wiki front? As we all know, they seem have their hand in everything. I thought maybe Google Docs was Google's only response to the wikimania craze, but I decided to look a little deeper. Turns out Google does have their own brand of wiki: Google Sites.
Back around 2005, a small company called JotSpot was just starting to make a splash with their wiki software. Google decided they wanted in and acquired the company in October 2006. In February 2008, JotSpot was re-released as Google Sites. In my opinion, Google Sites is unremarkable. They have your standard wiki features: ability to create pages, upload photos, anyone who's invited can easily edit, but no features really stand out.
The supposed advantage of Google Sites is that you can easily integrate your other favorite Google applications such as Google Docs, Google Calendar, and Google Maps. You can also search your site using a Google Search bar, putting their famous algorithms to work right inside your wiki. Additionally, just like on the Google homepage, your favorite Google links are listed at the top of your wiki, like Gmail and Google Reader. Google Sites is also what's called a "structured wiki," which means, if you know how, you can create your own lightweight applications, (called "Google Gadgets,") to use in your wiki. Users can then add Google Gadgets they've created to a list, so that other users can take advantage.
I can see how Google Sites might be enticing to someone who's a real Google fanatic and uses a lot of their applications. After trying it, I don't give this wiki high marks for usability though. To begin with, the ability to create your own gadgets is only useful if you know how to write HTML or JavaScript code. I'm betting this doesn't include the average wiki user, who's often drawn to wikis for the very reason that you don't need to know HTML code to use them. Secondly, Google Sites does weird things when you try to upload files. When you try to up post a picture or gadget, it asks you how many pixels x pixels you'd like to use. If you don't pick an appropriate number, it cuts off your picture or gadget, and you only have the trial and error process to fix it.
Finally, since the only real advantage I could see for my use of Google Sites was the ability to integrate my Google Docs into a wiki, I decided to give it a try. I inserted my Google Doc and it again gave me the frustrating pixels question. Once it was in there, I expected I would be able to edit my Doc within the wiki, just like in Google Docs. With no editing buttons present around the Doc, I couldn't figure it out. I consulted Google Sites help documents, but no luck. I'm sure I could have figured it out if I'd given it more time, but the key feature of wikis is they're supposed to be easy to use. If I can't figure it out in less than 5 minutes, it's not easy. Despite the testimonials they have listed on the homepage, (there's exactly 3,) I haven't heard of anyone I know bragging about, or even using, Google Sites. I can see why. I think Google missed the boat on this one.
What I do hear of people using all the time, however, is Google Docs. I think it's useful for a moment to compare Google Docs vs. wikis. After all, both are online, collaborative tools. So, if setting out on a project, which one should you use? Google Docs is great if you want to make a collaborative paper, spreadsheet, or PowerPoint presentation. It's easy for everyone to jump in and edit, and then later save the file in your preferred format for the final draft. You could write a paper in a wiki, but Google Docs is better suited for this task.
Think of wikis as living, collaborative environments with no set deadline. Google Docs is useful when you have a final product in mind. Wikis are more like simple websites that can continue to grow and change over an indefinite period of time. The features of Google Docs vs. wikis are unique enough that I don't see them as competitors. As for Google Sites? We'll see, but for now, they're no competition for easy to use wikis like PBWorks or Wikispaces.
Wetpaint
Like PBWorks and Wikispaces, Wetpaint is a free, web-based wiki. But if you're interested in making a wiki for your library, your class group project, or anything else remotely serious, I wouldn't recommend this site. Wetpaint's catch phrase is, "Where superfans are superstars." Their main shtick is to host giganto TV show fan wikis, but anyone can sign up and create a free wiki about anything they'd like. No, thanks. Wetpaint wikis are flooded with ads, so much so that it's hard to see anything you actually created, and the entire site ends up looking like a giant pop-up. For a mere $19.95 a month, you can get rid of the sprawling ads, (compare that to Wikispaces $5 removal of much less intrusive ads,) but if you're expecting more than 20,000 views a month, they're going to charge you again. I'll pass. (I might check out their Glee wiki though...)
Google Sites
As I was doing this project, I wondered, where's Google on the wiki front? As we all know, they seem have their hand in everything. I thought maybe Google Docs was Google's only response to the wikimania craze, but I decided to look a little deeper. Turns out Google does have their own brand of wiki: Google Sites.
Back around 2005, a small company called JotSpot was just starting to make a splash with their wiki software. Google decided they wanted in and acquired the company in October 2006. In February 2008, JotSpot was re-released as Google Sites. In my opinion, Google Sites is unremarkable. They have your standard wiki features: ability to create pages, upload photos, anyone who's invited can easily edit, but no features really stand out.
The supposed advantage of Google Sites is that you can easily integrate your other favorite Google applications such as Google Docs, Google Calendar, and Google Maps. You can also search your site using a Google Search bar, putting their famous algorithms to work right inside your wiki. Additionally, just like on the Google homepage, your favorite Google links are listed at the top of your wiki, like Gmail and Google Reader. Google Sites is also what's called a "structured wiki," which means, if you know how, you can create your own lightweight applications, (called "Google Gadgets,") to use in your wiki. Users can then add Google Gadgets they've created to a list, so that other users can take advantage.
I can see how Google Sites might be enticing to someone who's a real Google fanatic and uses a lot of their applications. After trying it, I don't give this wiki high marks for usability though. To begin with, the ability to create your own gadgets is only useful if you know how to write HTML or JavaScript code. I'm betting this doesn't include the average wiki user, who's often drawn to wikis for the very reason that you don't need to know HTML code to use them. Secondly, Google Sites does weird things when you try to upload files. When you try to up post a picture or gadget, it asks you how many pixels x pixels you'd like to use. If you don't pick an appropriate number, it cuts off your picture or gadget, and you only have the trial and error process to fix it.
Finally, since the only real advantage I could see for my use of Google Sites was the ability to integrate my Google Docs into a wiki, I decided to give it a try. I inserted my Google Doc and it again gave me the frustrating pixels question. Once it was in there, I expected I would be able to edit my Doc within the wiki, just like in Google Docs. With no editing buttons present around the Doc, I couldn't figure it out. I consulted Google Sites help documents, but no luck. I'm sure I could have figured it out if I'd given it more time, but the key feature of wikis is they're supposed to be easy to use. If I can't figure it out in less than 5 minutes, it's not easy. Despite the testimonials they have listed on the homepage, (there's exactly 3,) I haven't heard of anyone I know bragging about, or even using, Google Sites. I can see why. I think Google missed the boat on this one.
What I do hear of people using all the time, however, is Google Docs. I think it's useful for a moment to compare Google Docs vs. wikis. After all, both are online, collaborative tools. So, if setting out on a project, which one should you use? Google Docs is great if you want to make a collaborative paper, spreadsheet, or PowerPoint presentation. It's easy for everyone to jump in and edit, and then later save the file in your preferred format for the final draft. You could write a paper in a wiki, but Google Docs is better suited for this task.
Think of wikis as living, collaborative environments with no set deadline. Google Docs is useful when you have a final product in mind. Wikis are more like simple websites that can continue to grow and change over an indefinite period of time. The features of Google Docs vs. wikis are unique enough that I don't see them as competitors. As for Google Sites? We'll see, but for now, they're no competition for easy to use wikis like PBWorks or Wikispaces.
Wednesday, December 16, 2009
#5 Library Success
"Library Success: A Best Practices Wiki," is a public access wiki designed to be a "one-stop shop for great ideas and information for all types of librarians." It is a wiki for librarians, by librarians, (but others with helpful info related to libraries are welcome to contribute, too). All you have to do is supply your e-mail address so you're a registered user, and you can edit away on library topics. The site was created by Meredith Farkas, who is a librarian, writer, teacher, Head of Instructional Initiatives at Norwich University in Vermont, and somewhat of a library world celebrity. She runs the popular librarian blog, "Information Wants to be Free," or "IWTBF," and authored the book Social Software in Libraries: Building Collaboration, Communication and Community Online, published in 2007. In March of 2006, she was named a "Mover and Shaker" by Library Journal, in part due to her creation of this wiki. In her own words, obtained from her Library Success User Profile, Farkas says she intends the wiki to be a "collaborative space for librarians to share success stories and inspire each other to do great things in our own libraries."
Created in 2005, Library Success is hosted by MediaWiki, the same folks that host Wikipedia, so you'll find the interface looks very familiar. I thought this wiki was organized very well. There is a sidebar of contents on the main page which contains categories such as Programming, Readers' Advisory, Services to Specific Groups and Technology, among others. When you click on one of these, you are directed to a list of sub-categories. Click on one of these and you'll find entries on topics including definitions, histories, advice, and a wide number of links to other helpful resources. There's also a search box to find entries, just like in Wikipedia.
I love this website. I think it's a great use of a wiki and also a great example of librarians doing what librarians do best: sharing information. I used Library Success earlier in the semester when I was looking for information on Street Lit Bestsellers. In Library Success I found a definition, alternate terms, an update on the popularity status of Street Lit, and links to several great resources such as prominent Street Lit Publishers, Book Lists, and Articles.
Thankfully, there's a lot of librarians excited about sharing their informtation with this wiki, which is what makes the site a success. It's important to keep in mind that when it comes to public wikis, wikis designed to get the "sum of knowledge" of a group, the strength is in the numbers. What happens if you don't have a lot of folks contributing? Well, compare and contrast Library Success with LIS Wiki, http://liswiki.org/wiki/Main_Page.
It appears this wiki was created around the same time as Library Success, summer 2005, but it has come to a very different fate than that of Library Success. LIS Wiki is, unfortunately, a failure. To begin with, when you come to the Main Page, there's absolutely nothing on it. Doesn't look very hopeful. When you click on the Browse Categories button, you find the categories listed are surprisingly sparse. The articles are even more disappointing. Most of them are listed as "stubs," the MediaWiki definition for an article that's not fully developed, and ask for your help to expand the article. On each page there is link to go to a Wikipedia article by the same name. Curious, I looked up "information literacy" in the LIS Wiki. This article was about a paragraph long. The Wikipedia article, however, was about 15 times as long. I'll be sticking with Library Success or even Wikipedia when I have LIS questions, sorry LIS Wiki.
So where did the LIS Wiki go wrong? Well, they simply didn't have enough people contributing. This can be a common problem for people trying to start up a new wiki they have big dreams for. Somewhat of a wiki guru, Meredith Farkas gets asked, "How can I get people to use my wiki?" all the time. So much so that she put it as a question on her blog's FAQ page: http://meredith.wolfwater.com/wordpress/looking-for-me/merediths-faq/ . Her advice? To increase your chances for a successful wiki, first, she says, you need to "seed your wiki." This means creating a basic structure and adding some pages with a little content. She says no one wants to contribute to a wiki with no content, because, "why waste your time with a project that no one else thought was worth contributing to?"
Additionally, she says, "documentation is critical." You need to supply your wiki with implicit instructions: "tell your community what a wiki is, what the purpose of this wiki is, and how they can edit the wiki." The LIS Wiki Main Page is totally blank, leaving potential contributors in the dark. On the other hand, the Library Success Main Page has great documentation, informing folks exactly how to start editing, what sorts of things to contribute, and inspiring them to be part of an exciting wiki. The result? Success!
References
http://www.libsuccess.org/
http://www.libsuccess.org/index.php?title=User:Meredith
http://liswiki.org/wiki/Main_Page
http://meredith.wolfwater.com/wordpress/looking-for-me/merediths-faq/
Created in 2005, Library Success is hosted by MediaWiki, the same folks that host Wikipedia, so you'll find the interface looks very familiar. I thought this wiki was organized very well. There is a sidebar of contents on the main page which contains categories such as Programming, Readers' Advisory, Services to Specific Groups and Technology, among others. When you click on one of these, you are directed to a list of sub-categories. Click on one of these and you'll find entries on topics including definitions, histories, advice, and a wide number of links to other helpful resources. There's also a search box to find entries, just like in Wikipedia.
I love this website. I think it's a great use of a wiki and also a great example of librarians doing what librarians do best: sharing information. I used Library Success earlier in the semester when I was looking for information on Street Lit Bestsellers. In Library Success I found a definition, alternate terms, an update on the popularity status of Street Lit, and links to several great resources such as prominent Street Lit Publishers, Book Lists, and Articles.
Thankfully, there's a lot of librarians excited about sharing their informtation with this wiki, which is what makes the site a success. It's important to keep in mind that when it comes to public wikis, wikis designed to get the "sum of knowledge" of a group, the strength is in the numbers. What happens if you don't have a lot of folks contributing? Well, compare and contrast Library Success with LIS Wiki, http://liswiki.org/wiki/Main_Page.
It appears this wiki was created around the same time as Library Success, summer 2005, but it has come to a very different fate than that of Library Success. LIS Wiki is, unfortunately, a failure. To begin with, when you come to the Main Page, there's absolutely nothing on it. Doesn't look very hopeful. When you click on the Browse Categories button, you find the categories listed are surprisingly sparse. The articles are even more disappointing. Most of them are listed as "stubs," the MediaWiki definition for an article that's not fully developed, and ask for your help to expand the article. On each page there is link to go to a Wikipedia article by the same name. Curious, I looked up "information literacy" in the LIS Wiki. This article was about a paragraph long. The Wikipedia article, however, was about 15 times as long. I'll be sticking with Library Success or even Wikipedia when I have LIS questions, sorry LIS Wiki.
So where did the LIS Wiki go wrong? Well, they simply didn't have enough people contributing. This can be a common problem for people trying to start up a new wiki they have big dreams for. Somewhat of a wiki guru, Meredith Farkas gets asked, "How can I get people to use my wiki?" all the time. So much so that she put it as a question on her blog's FAQ page: http://meredith.wolfwater.com/wordpress/looking-for-me/merediths-faq/ . Her advice? To increase your chances for a successful wiki, first, she says, you need to "seed your wiki." This means creating a basic structure and adding some pages with a little content. She says no one wants to contribute to a wiki with no content, because, "why waste your time with a project that no one else thought was worth contributing to?"
Additionally, she says, "documentation is critical." You need to supply your wiki with implicit instructions: "tell your community what a wiki is, what the purpose of this wiki is, and how they can edit the wiki." The LIS Wiki Main Page is totally blank, leaving potential contributors in the dark. On the other hand, the Library Success Main Page has great documentation, informing folks exactly how to start editing, what sorts of things to contribute, and inspiring them to be part of an exciting wiki. The result? Success!
References
http://www.libsuccess.org/
http://www.libsuccess.org/index.php?title=User:Meredith
http://liswiki.org/wiki/Main_Page
http://meredith.wolfwater.com/wordpress/looking-for-me/merediths-faq/
#4 Open Library
"One web page for every book ever published. It's a lofty, but achievable, goal."
This is mission of OpenLibrary.org, a website aiming to be the largest, free, global online book catalog and library. The project was started by 21 year old Aaron Swartz, in partnership with the non-profit Internet Archive and the Open Content Alliance. Swartz says the goal of Open Library is "to get metadata about every book to explain why a book is interesting and then provide as many ways of getting it as possible" (American Libraries, 2008, p. 27). Digitized copies of public domain books are available to read in an attractive ebook interface linked right from the record. If a digital copy is not available, Open Library provides links to purchase the book from an online bookseller or borrow a copy from a library.
Open Library is a catalog for the people, by the people. It is a public wiki, so all content and information is updatable and editable by users. In addition to providing traditional library catalog information and ways to get a book, the website also aims to provide user-generated reviews, references, and discussions. Though Swartz downplays any competitive nature, Open Library is bound to give OCLC a run for their money. The catalog will likely have great influence over the next generation of OPACs, which are often criticized for not being user-friendly. Open Library surpasses OCLCs current capabilities by blending metadata, content, and Web 2.0; blurring the distinction between content and text (Coombs, 2008).
Rather than considering Open Library a threat, many librarians view it as a "friendly challenge" to the library world and its current catalogs and services offered (Coombs, 2008, p.28). Open Library definitely doesn't want to cause any hard feelings. In fact, they welcome and encourage libraries to become active development partners and users. Not only does Open Library hope that libraries will help contribute to the collection, they also hope librarians will provide valuable feedback on the website's interface and functionality. Indeed, many libraries are already participating by providing content and feedback.
I checked Open Library by doing a search for "The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn." Several records came up and I clicked on one that had full text available. I was greeted by a page that showed a cover of this particular edition of the book, and a MaRC like record including Subject Headings and an LC call number. "Edit" buttons and a line saying "Add it!" invited me to add a not-yet-included description of the book or table of contents. A "Borrow" from "Your Local Library" option linked me to WorldCat's entry for the book. Of course, for this version of the book I had the option to read the book online. The embeddable ebook reader was fun and easy to use, complete with graphics that make the pages look like they're actually turning. My one complaint is that the Zoom function was only available by 25% increments, and for this particular copy, I needed something in between.
Overall, I commend what Open Library is doing. Libraries need a push to make their catalogs more user friendly and perhaps this will do the trick by providing a good example of what's possible and what people want. In the future, Open Library has ambitious plans to integrate with Wikipedia and possibly even LibraryThing, so I can only see this project getting better and better.
References
Backed by internet archive, entrepreneur takes on OCLC.(2008). American Libraries, 39(4), 27-27.
Coombs, K. (2008). Opening up to open library. Library Journal (1976), , 28.
This is mission of OpenLibrary.org, a website aiming to be the largest, free, global online book catalog and library. The project was started by 21 year old Aaron Swartz, in partnership with the non-profit Internet Archive and the Open Content Alliance. Swartz says the goal of Open Library is "to get metadata about every book to explain why a book is interesting and then provide as many ways of getting it as possible" (American Libraries, 2008, p. 27). Digitized copies of public domain books are available to read in an attractive ebook interface linked right from the record. If a digital copy is not available, Open Library provides links to purchase the book from an online bookseller or borrow a copy from a library.
Open Library is a catalog for the people, by the people. It is a public wiki, so all content and information is updatable and editable by users. In addition to providing traditional library catalog information and ways to get a book, the website also aims to provide user-generated reviews, references, and discussions. Though Swartz downplays any competitive nature, Open Library is bound to give OCLC a run for their money. The catalog will likely have great influence over the next generation of OPACs, which are often criticized for not being user-friendly. Open Library surpasses OCLCs current capabilities by blending metadata, content, and Web 2.0; blurring the distinction between content and text (Coombs, 2008).
Rather than considering Open Library a threat, many librarians view it as a "friendly challenge" to the library world and its current catalogs and services offered (Coombs, 2008, p.28). Open Library definitely doesn't want to cause any hard feelings. In fact, they welcome and encourage libraries to become active development partners and users. Not only does Open Library hope that libraries will help contribute to the collection, they also hope librarians will provide valuable feedback on the website's interface and functionality. Indeed, many libraries are already participating by providing content and feedback.
I checked Open Library by doing a search for "The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn." Several records came up and I clicked on one that had full text available. I was greeted by a page that showed a cover of this particular edition of the book, and a MaRC like record including Subject Headings and an LC call number. "Edit" buttons and a line saying "Add it!" invited me to add a not-yet-included description of the book or table of contents. A "Borrow" from "Your Local Library" option linked me to WorldCat's entry for the book. Of course, for this version of the book I had the option to read the book online. The embeddable ebook reader was fun and easy to use, complete with graphics that make the pages look like they're actually turning. My one complaint is that the Zoom function was only available by 25% increments, and for this particular copy, I needed something in between.
Overall, I commend what Open Library is doing. Libraries need a push to make their catalogs more user friendly and perhaps this will do the trick by providing a good example of what's possible and what people want. In the future, Open Library has ambitious plans to integrate with Wikipedia and possibly even LibraryThing, so I can only see this project getting better and better.
References
Backed by internet archive, entrepreneur takes on OCLC.(2008). American Libraries, 39(4), 27-27.
Coombs, K. (2008). Opening up to open library. Library Journal (1976), , 28.
Tuesday, December 1, 2009
#3 Wikispaces.com Wikis
Wikispaces wikis are probably tied with PB wikis for popularity. Like PB wikis, wikispaces.com offers free, web-based, easy-to-use wikis. However, when you compare the two side-by-side, Wikispaces kind of seems like the cooler older brother of PB wikis. To begin with, wikispaces looks much sleeker than PB wikis. The design is much cleaner and modern looking. If you want an attractive looking wiki, wikispaces is probably the better way to go. Wikispaces also has a lot more customizable options for changing the "Look and Feel," (as they call it,) of your wiki. You have the option of several different themes and a practically unlimited number of colors. In PB wikis, you only have a couple choices for color changes.
There are also several other neat features that Wikispaces has that PB wiki does not. For example, Wikispaces keeps all sorts of usage statistics for your wiki, so you can see how many views your wiki is getting, (from either members or "unique visitors,") or how much your wiki is being edited. Wikispaces also has an internal messaging system so members can send messages to other wiki members, while keeping e-mail addresses private. Wikispaces also has many more embedable widgets than PB wikis. Not only can you embed a YouTube video, you can also embed things like a Flickr slide show, a SurveyGizmo poll, a Google doc or Google map, a tag cloud of a page's tags, Delicious, RSS feeds, or even Skype or Meebo! Wikispaces really seems to be keeping up with the cutting edge trends, especially in terms of 2.0 tools.
Another thing Wikispaces does better than PB wikis is the wiki editing history. When you click on a page's History tab, you get a detailed log of who changed what on that page when. There is even a space for comments, so editors can communicate about why they changed a particular item on a page. When you click on a history entry, what was changed is clearly highlighted. There is also the option to revert to old pages in the History, which could be useful if you made a mistake when editing.
My favorite Wikispaces feature though is the Discussion tab. Each page has a discussion tab where any one can start new discussion threads or respond to existing ones. Even if only a few members are allowed to make changes on your wiki, you can set the settings so that any visitors can contribute to the discussions. I thought this might be useful, say, if you were a public library with a wiki and you wanted to have a book discussion section. You can even get an RSS feed of discussion changes, (or an RSS feed of any page edits, by the way!)
I got to know Wikispaces by, the best way, creating and playing around with my own wiki. You can view my very basic wiki here to get an idea of what a Wikispaces wiki looks like: http://acmepubliclibrary.wikispaces.com/. I decided to pretend I was a teen public librarian creating a wiki that was designed for teens to use. I used the Discussion feature by creating a Twilight page that encourages teens to start their own book discussions. This brings to mind a good point about wikis. Though wikis are most famous for their collaborating capabilities, they also work really well as simple web pages. Anyone can easily create an entire web site with multiple pages that can disseminate information, even if they don't know any code for building web pages! In my Teen wiki example, the wiki would be viewable only for teens, (but they could participate in book discussions,) and several librarians could have editing capabilities.
So, Wikispaces wikis sound really great, right? Even better than PB wikis? There is, however, a catch. Wikispaces wikis may look much nicer than PB wikis, but the catch iiiiiis.... Ads. Unlike PB wikis, which are ad free, Wikispaces has a string of ads that show up along the side of each page, tailored to whatever content you put in the page. (My Twilight page has Twilight ads...) If you want, you can pay $5 a month to get rid of the ads, which also buys you some additional features, ( like the ability to create custom themes for your wiki using html and CSS).
Overall, I think the style of PB Wikis lends itself better to more serious pursuits, like the classroom or employee work pages. Wikispaces is much more trendy, so it works perfect for something fun like a teen page.
There are also several other neat features that Wikispaces has that PB wiki does not. For example, Wikispaces keeps all sorts of usage statistics for your wiki, so you can see how many views your wiki is getting, (from either members or "unique visitors,") or how much your wiki is being edited. Wikispaces also has an internal messaging system so members can send messages to other wiki members, while keeping e-mail addresses private. Wikispaces also has many more embedable widgets than PB wikis. Not only can you embed a YouTube video, you can also embed things like a Flickr slide show, a SurveyGizmo poll, a Google doc or Google map, a tag cloud of a page's tags, Delicious, RSS feeds, or even Skype or Meebo! Wikispaces really seems to be keeping up with the cutting edge trends, especially in terms of 2.0 tools.
Another thing Wikispaces does better than PB wikis is the wiki editing history. When you click on a page's History tab, you get a detailed log of who changed what on that page when. There is even a space for comments, so editors can communicate about why they changed a particular item on a page. When you click on a history entry, what was changed is clearly highlighted. There is also the option to revert to old pages in the History, which could be useful if you made a mistake when editing.
My favorite Wikispaces feature though is the Discussion tab. Each page has a discussion tab where any one can start new discussion threads or respond to existing ones. Even if only a few members are allowed to make changes on your wiki, you can set the settings so that any visitors can contribute to the discussions. I thought this might be useful, say, if you were a public library with a wiki and you wanted to have a book discussion section. You can even get an RSS feed of discussion changes, (or an RSS feed of any page edits, by the way!)
I got to know Wikispaces by, the best way, creating and playing around with my own wiki. You can view my very basic wiki here to get an idea of what a Wikispaces wiki looks like: http://acmepubliclibrary.wikispaces.com/. I decided to pretend I was a teen public librarian creating a wiki that was designed for teens to use. I used the Discussion feature by creating a Twilight page that encourages teens to start their own book discussions. This brings to mind a good point about wikis. Though wikis are most famous for their collaborating capabilities, they also work really well as simple web pages. Anyone can easily create an entire web site with multiple pages that can disseminate information, even if they don't know any code for building web pages! In my Teen wiki example, the wiki would be viewable only for teens, (but they could participate in book discussions,) and several librarians could have editing capabilities.
So, Wikispaces wikis sound really great, right? Even better than PB wikis? There is, however, a catch. Wikispaces wikis may look much nicer than PB wikis, but the catch iiiiiis.... Ads. Unlike PB wikis, which are ad free, Wikispaces has a string of ads that show up along the side of each page, tailored to whatever content you put in the page. (My Twilight page has Twilight ads...) If you want, you can pay $5 a month to get rid of the ads, which also buys you some additional features, ( like the ability to create custom themes for your wiki using html and CSS).
Overall, I think the style of PB Wikis lends itself better to more serious pursuits, like the classroom or employee work pages. Wikispaces is much more trendy, so it works perfect for something fun like a teen page.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)