Group items tagged

This is just a small slice of life on the Wikipedia campaign trail, where the little things can get big fast, and where the edit wars may sometimes say more about Wikipedia and the people who use it than the candidates themselves. Breaking news or living history, Wikipedia evolves with the candidates, the moment, and its enormous editorial cast

Sometimes I anally use Bluebook citation in my school notes. So when I pulled a quote from Wikipedia regarding a case, I needed to cite it. Wikipedia provides guidance on this:

The Dutch justice ministry is to temporarily block its 30,000 employees from using Wikipedia, the online encyclopaedia, at work after a magazine reported that ministry computers had been used to edit more than 800 entries.

Professor Nov, an information systems expert, produced a nice data point that seems to be methodologically sound, covering eight different motivations for contributing to Wikipedia.

The intrinsic motivations in the list may add a bit of extra incentive, but the main goal is to get one's point of view heard.

Anyone can add to Wikipedia, the popular online encylopedia, but whether a submission survives is determined entirely by its global community of users — and apparently those users are tougher graders than college professors.

OFFSHOOT is a model of an online catalog that would be moderated by the public library community. Constructed as an alternate means to creating an OPAC, OFFSHOOT is cataloging from the "wiki" point of view. Traditional library catalogs, both the public side and internal side, have historically been "locked", giving library patrons little to no opportunity to annotate the library records. OFFSHOOT is the opposite extreme, giving library patrons complete control over the library catalog records. This enables two things within the library system: a veritable multitude of "catalogers" working on a volume of records that has been traditionally worked on by 3 to 10 people, and an intensive expansion in the amount of cross-referencing within the library catalog.

The problem is in the way the Wikipedia has come to be regarded and used; how it's been elevated to such importance so quickly. And that is part of the larger pattern of the appeal of a new online collectivism that is nothing less than a resurgence of the idea that the collective is all-wise, that it is desirable to have influence concentrated in a bottleneck that can channel the collective with the most verity and force.

How an attempt to build an online encyclopedia touched off history’s biggest experiment in collaborative knowledge

If we believe all the hype and rhetoric then we are essentially Information & Knowledge Professionals [1]in an Information & Knowledge Society[2] with an Information & Knowledge Economy [3]during the formative years of the Information & Knowledge age[4].

This manifesto is intended to propose that we do just that; that as students, faculty and staff we transform SLIS and create the kind of utopian digital learning organization that we all supposedly advocate. Let us apply the Web 2.0, Library 2.0, social networking, knowledge management principles that we are all in training to implement in society at large. Let us engage in the manifestation of a vision we all allegedly maintain:

The thread that runs through all of this discussion is the most burning question to ask before implementing any folksonomy: What are you willing to do to make it work for your user community? What kind of skills can you and your organization bring to the task? What kinds of hassles and conflicts are you willing to settle? And who in your organization is best suited to oversee such an endeavor? In each of the examples presented here there is a way to contact the ones who run the community, hear complaints, listen to suggestions or provide help to those in need. While there is necessarily a greater (Wikipedia) or lesser (ESPGame) need for supervision, there is nonetheless someone in charge. Who that is for your organization is essential to the success of the community.