Simon Bolivar
Image by dbking(from Flickr, under Creative Commons)
Image by Willie Lunchmeat(from Flickr, under Creative Commons)
Anyone like to guess the significance of today's offerings from Flickr???
Anyone like to guess the significance of today's offerings from Flickr???
I knew about Wikipedia before starting this Thing - but doesn't more or less everyone? I use it sometimes, though often by finding an entry for something through a Fastsearch, rather than going there direct, and with an appreciation that its content is very ... variable, and not to be trusted unreservedly. I've read in another Cam23 blog that it may be about to get more in the way of editorial activity, which I guess would be good. Depending on who the editors are, of course. Beyond that, I've come across wikis in the form of shared documents to be edited by members of an environmental group that I belong to. They seemed to work moderately well - when members bothered to edit them, which was not guaranteed - although there was always a need for someone to be in overall control of them, to arbitrate where there were disagreements, and to decide when sufficient time had been allowed for input. As with collaborative Google documents, I suppose, or perhaps more so.
Wikis are probably useful for large(ish) collaborative projects where people can't easily get together but have the right software and expertise to use it, and the time and enthsusiasm for the project to do so. Also enough spirit of co-operation to compromise or accept someone else's decision, or alternatively strong enough leadership to give a ruling on controversial points. This might be true of some libraries, it might not. In my small library, with its small number of staff, several of whom do not use computers, they are a bit of a non-starter. Apart from that, I'm struggling to think of many kinds of documents that this organisation produces where this kind of co-operation is generally required. And if there are some, which couldn't be done better by sitting down with someone.
Are these wikis more useful? ;o)
Image by Ross Mayfield (from Flickr, under Creative Commons)
Wikis are probably useful for large(ish) collaborative projects where people can't easily get together but have the right software and expertise to use it, and the time and enthsusiasm for the project to do so. Also enough spirit of co-operation to compromise or accept someone else's decision, or alternatively strong enough leadership to give a ruling on controversial points. This might be true of some libraries, it might not. In my small library, with its small number of staff, several of whom do not use computers, they are a bit of a non-starter. Apart from that, I'm struggling to think of many kinds of documents that this organisation produces where this kind of co-operation is generally required. And if there are some, which couldn't be done better by sitting down with someone.
Are these wikis more useful? ;o)
Image by Ross Mayfield (from Flickr, under Creative Commons)
No comments:
Post a Comment