Internet Resources Wiki

C&RL News has put up a wiki titled Internet Resources Wiki. The index page notes, "Welcome to the C&RL News Internet Resources wiki. Internet Resources articles from the magazine are posted here, so that their authors, as well as the general public, can update them to keep them relevant. When adding your article, please include a reference to the original print version with a link back to the static Web version."

There are only four articles up at the moment but this is new. I just received an invitation to place my extremely dated Distance Education: Delivering instruction in cyberspace from 1998 on the wiki. I will do so and I am sure other authors will as well. I can then go about updating and keeping the article current.

One concern I have is spamming. If these articles get visible on the Web, they will get spammed. I can see dozens of University of Phoenix affiliate site owners adding links to my article. (Hey, they get $500 for everyone who signs up via their link!) And then there are the automated spambots. It takes a lot of effort for a wiki to keep the spam links out. I wonder if ACRL will be able to do this well?

Call for Chapters: Library 2.0 Initiatives in Academic Libraries

Call for Chapters
Hybrid Book/Wiki Publication
Library 2.0 Initiatives in Academic Libraries
An ACRL Monograph
Editor: Laura B. Cohen

Library 2.0 is a response to the revolution in the way library users create, edit, seek, use, organize and share information. Many observers agree on several guiding principles of Library 2.0. These include the use of social information tools favored by users; building personalized, participatory library services driven by user needs; an embrace of radical trust; taking the library to users; and rapid change mobilized by assessment.

Academic libraries are spearheading Library 2.0 innovations, but many libraries remain out of the loop. Library 2.0 Initiatives in Academic Libraries will be a hybrid book and post-publication wiki presenting case studies of Library 2.0 initiatives and will serve as a guide to action. It is the first professional library publication of its type.

Library 2.0 Initiatives in Academic Libraries will consist of case study chapters on a range of significant Library 2.0 initiatives taking place in academic libraries throughout the world. Following its publication, the authors will maintain follow-up reports on a wiki that will track the subsequent evolution of their initiatives. These reports can be tracked on the wiki site or by RSS feed.

The book and wiki will be published by the Association of College & Research Libraries.

Recommended topics: Acceptable topics cover a range of significant initiatives that embody the guiding principles of Library 2.0. Topics may cover functional beta initiatives.

Chapter topics, and any combinations of these topics, may include but are not limited to the following:

- 2.0-enhanced Web sites
- Assessment of Library 2.0 initiatives
- Blogging
- Delivering customizable content
- Engaging staff in Library 2.0 principles and practices
- Engaging students in library planning and assessment
- Gaming
- IM communication
- Innovative user-centered services in physical spaces
- Library Web sites as community spaces
- Mashups
- Mobile computing-enhanced online spaces
- OPAC innovations
- Podcasting, videocasting, Web conferencing
- Privacy and 2.0
- RSS content delivery
- Social bookmarking
- Social networking tools used for outreach, community conversations, teaching, research, etc.
- Student collaboration in developing library services
- Tagging
- Taking the library to users in both physical and online spaces
- Wiki publishing

Submissions: Individuals interested in contributing to this publication are invited to e-mail a proposal to the editor. Significant writings about the initiative should not have appeared elsewhere. The proposal should be approximately 500 words and consist of your name, affiliation, working title of the chapter, abstract, description of the initiative and plans for its future development. Proposals should include a statement that the author(s) agree to maintain periodic project updates on the post-publication wiki for a period of at least two years following publication of the book.

Please e-mail your proposal in an attached document to Laura B. Cohen, editor, at lcohen at uamail.albany.edu by March 1, 2007. You will be notified about the status of your submission by April 1, 2007. Following acceptance of proposals, authors will have three months to prepare chapters of 5,000-7,000 words. The book has an estimated publication date of fall 2007.

Wikiseek

Does your search engine disappoint you? Would you rather only find content that is from Wikipedia or linked to from Wikipedia articles? The tool for you is at hand with the launch today of Wikiseek.

The site description reads, "The contents of Wikiseek are restricted to Wikipedia pages and only those sites which are referenced within Wikipedia, making it an authoritative source of information less subject to spam and SEO schemes. Wikiseek utilizes Searchme's category refinement technology, providing suggested search refinements based on user tagging and categorization within Wikipedia, making results more relevant than conventional search engines."

Although Wikipedia may have problems, all the content there is peer reviewed. Further, all the links to other Web sites are ruthlessly examined and weeded on a regular basis making it hard for any but the best sites to survive long term. If you disagree with any of the content or links, you can change it, discuss it, and view the history of how changes have been made. The Wikipedia project is truly open.

However, I do have concerns on basing a search engine entirely on Wikipedia. If something is not in Wikipedia, is it not worth finding? I kind of view Wikipedia like any other encyclopedia. It is a good starting point for background information but not in and of itself a source to use for serious research. Hence, any search engine (like Wikiseek) based on it is only a place to find the background information. Other tools (like library databases and other search engines) would be needed in many cases to move into deeper content.

How are students going to react to this search engine? While some give up Google and use this? I know many of the college students use Wikipedia as their main research tool so this may be a logical extension to them.

Battlestar Wiki

Battlestar Wiki. It seems like there is a Wiki for everything now. This is nice as wikis are good collaborative publishing tools. However, I ignore most of them due to a lack of interest. However, I have found one I am very attracted to. It is a wiki based on the TV show Battlestar Galactica.

The Wiki is currently available in four languages (English, German, Chinese, and Spanish). The English wiki alone has over 1500 articles. What a great project! Yes, I am biased towards this show. It dominated my fantasy life in the late 70s...

Wikipedia Plagiarism Ends Journalist's Career

Wikipedia Plagiarism Ends Journalist's Career. And yet another caught professional plagiarist! This is the first journalist I have heard about being busted for copying Wikipedia though.

Here is the report from Slashdot:

An anonymous reader writes "Tim Ryan, a 21 year veteran entertainment columnist for the Honolulu Star Bulletin, was fired yesterday after an investigation revealed multiple instances of his incorporating unattributed paragraphs from other sources. This case is unique in that it was first revealed by Wikipedia after an attentive Wikipedia editor noted similarities between a Wikipedia article and one of Ryan's columns. However he wasn't fired until after other news outlets started to run the story. Sadly, though the Star-Bulletin has admitted to the plagiarism, they failed to publicly acknowledge that Wikipedia was responsible for bringing this situation to light."

I will be updating my plagiarism show and tell presentation for faculty to include this story. I wonder though, if the journalist had written the Wikipedia articles himself, would have copying them for his newspaper been plagiarism or just sloppy documentation?

Journal: Wikipedia as accurate as Britannica

Journal: Wikipedia as accurate as Britannica. CNN posted this article about the reliability of Wikipedia today based on a study from Nature. It noted, "Wikipedia, the encyclopedia that relies on volunteers to pen nearly 4 million articles, is about as accurate in covering scientific topics as Encyclopedia Britannica, the journal Nature wrote in an online article published Wednesday."

It goes on further to note, "Errors appear to be the exception rather than the rule, Nature said in Wednesday's article, which the scientific journal said was the first to use peer review to compare Wikipedia to Britannica. Based on 42 articles reviewed by experts, the average scientific entry in Wikipedia contained four errors or omissions, while Britannica had three."

I wonder if this study took into account spammers and propagandists who know how to evade the major error correction methods used by Wikipedia?

In a recent article I noted, "One concern about validity of the articles at Wikipedia is the ability of clever vandals to make changes to articles without getting caught. Once a user learns how most vandalism is detected, actions can be taken to counter this. For example, as edit logs are kept on every user, there is nothing from making a new user account every time a user logs in. (Even logging in with AOL or EarthLink will give the user a new IP every time for anonymous editing.) If they make only one or two edits and then abandon the account, future vandalism by subsequent accounts will not give prior vandalism away. Also, if the vandal makes small changes to out-of-the-way articles or adds a seemingly related spam link to an article while also making a legitimate edit to improve the article, the vandalism may survive for a long period of time. Also, long established and trusted members do not have their edits scrutinized on a regular basis. It would be fairly easily for these users to make infrequent and hard to detect changes to vandalize or insert their own biases in articles. "

Yes, Wikipedia works most of the time. And it can be be updated instantly. The major articles will always be fixed quickly as they are visible. Vandalizing George W. Bush, China, gravity, history, Shakespeare, etc, is pointless. But how about the vast majority of Wikipedia articles which are not monitored closely? If you know what you are doing, a lot of articles can be altered incorrectly without anyone noticing. The smart vandal/spammer is not caught all the time!

This is one major difference between Wikipedia and Britannica. It is virtually impossible to "game" the Britannica no matter how hard you try.

I like Wikipedia. It is a good tool. But I fail to see how it can be considered an authority source like Britannica when it clearly can be manipulated by those who take the time to learn how to do it.

Vandals, Administrators, and Sockpuppets, Oh My! An Ethnographic Study of Wikipedia’s Handling of Problem Behavior

Vandals, Administrators, and Sockpuppets, Oh My! An Ethnographic Study of Wikipedia’s Handling of Problem Behavior. This is a link to the my newest online article. This one deals with problem behavior at Wikipedia and what the Wikipedians do about it. The article is still a draft so please send me comments if you any suggestions. I know it still needs help but I thought it would still be of interest to some. I hope to eventually publish this.

And this is probably timely anyway. Take a look what can happen when the system breaks down and false information gets into a biography at A false Wikipedia 'biography' from USA Today.

From the site:

Wikipedia is a 21st Century phenomena which is forcing many to reconsider what is and what is not valid and authoritative online. Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia that any one can edit. This creates many opportunities to expand knowledge but it also opens the project up to vandalism and abuse. Many writers have commented on this and determined that Wikipedia has a good defense against problematic behavior even if these same writers are unsure of the legitimacy of Wikipedia as a whole. Other writers have noted the need for identified authors for legitimacy to be attainable. This ethnographic study looks at a public system that Wikipedia uses to identify and correct problem behaviors from contributors. It concludes that Wikipedia does have a good system in place that can protect the integrity of articles in many instances. However, this study was limited in scope and was unable to determine if the system in place for abuse reporting is truly able to vouch for the status of Wikipedia as an authoritative resource.

Library Success: A Best Practices Wiki

Library Success: A Best Practices Wiki. I have discovered yet another library wiki. This one was started in the summer by Meredith Farkas who is a librarian in Vermont.

Here is the mission statement from the site, "This wiki was created to be a one-stop-shop for great ideas for all types of librarians. All over the world, librarians are developing successful programs and doing innovative things with technology that no one outside of their library knows about. There are lots of great blogs out there sharing information about the profession, but there is no one place where all of this information is collected and organized. If you've done something at your library that you consider a success, please write about it in the wiki or provide a link to outside coverage. If you have materials that would be helpful to other librarians, add them to the wiki. And if you know of a librarian or a library that is doing something great, feel free to include information about it or links to it. Basically, if you know of anything that might be useful to other librarians (including useful websites), this is the place to put it. I hope this wiki will be a venue where people can share ideas with one another and where librarians can learn to replicate the successes of other libraries. "

There is good content here already. There are also sparse pages like the information literacy article which has some links but the sections titled success stories and tips for teaching are still blank. (I know, I can always add some content myself...)

I am also not fond of the Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/2.5/) Creative Commons License being used at the site. Does this mean I can not copy content and have Google Adsense on the page? I already violated that by cutting and pasting above. I'll call it fair use. I much prefer the Wikipedia license which allows for commercial use and allows authors to create derivative works.

Except for the license issue, I like this site and I hope it is successful.

Library Instruction Wiki

Library Instruction Wiki. Or in the words in the logo, stop reinventing the wheel...

This appears to be a fairly new wiki. Obviously, it is intended to help librarians share library instruction tips.

The site description reads, "Welcome to the Oregon Library Instruction Wiki, a collaboratively developed resource for librarians involved with or interested in instruction. All librarians and others interested in library instruction are welcome and encouraged to contribute."

There are currently sections under development for handouts and tutorials, teaching tips, class specific handouts, bibliography, and a glossary of library instruction slang.

Visitors are encouraged to contribute. Editing at a Wiki is rather easy to do once you master the basic concepts and there is a new user page which has directions for getting started.

Wikis are started and then are left dead all the time. I hope this one grows and thrives.

LISWiki

LISWiki. If you are familar with Wikipedia or Wikis, you will be happy to hear that someone is trying to start a wiki dedicated to library science.

If you are not familiar with the concept of a wiki, I present you with Wikipedia's definition, "A wiki (pronounced [wɪkiː], [wiːkiː] or [viːkiː]; see section Pronunciation) is a web application that allows users to add content and their own version of History, as on an Internet forum, but also allows anyone to edit the content. The term Wiki also refers to the collaborative software used to create such a website (see Wiki software)."

There is a not a lot here yet as it only was started in late June. Looking at the recent changes pages, it looks like most days are seeing 10-20 edits. If enough librarians take interest, this might become a good resource.

I have completed a few edits at LISWiki. I need to create an account. It could be fun if the community can avoid edit wars and keep the spambots out.

Book - From Wikipedia

Book - From Wikipedia. This is a copy of the Wikipedia article on the book. I have placed a copy of it at some old space I have at Michigan State University. I am trying an experiment. I am going to keep this text pure and away from the editing that goes on constantly at Wikipedia. I'll check back periodically and see if the editing has improved the article. It will be easy to compare the two with an untouchable copy at my site. It might make for a good paper. Or it might be less interesting to write about than I thought...

From the site:

A book is a collection of leaves of paper, parchment or other material, bound together along one edge within covers. A book is also a literary work or a main division of such a work. A book produced in electronic format is known as an e-book.

In library and information science, a book is called a monograph to distinguish it from serial publications such as magazines, journals or newspapers.

Publishers may produce low-cost, pre-proof editions known as galleys for promotional purposes, such as generating reviews in advance of publication. Galleys are usually made as cheaply as possible, since they are not intended for sale.

A lover of books is usually referred to as a bibliophile, a bibliophilist, or a philobiblist, or, more informally, a bookworm.

Encarta lets everyone be an editor. Very interesting. This is very different from Wikipedia in one respect. All submissions are going to be reviewed by Encarta editors. This will add a level of real peer review which is often lacking at Wikipedia where people with no expertise can beat someone with a doctorate in the subject at hand if they are persistent enough and have the Wikipedia skills to win an edit war. This review level will also prevent the Chinese spambots for targetting Encarta. I'll go make some suggestions at Encarata and see how fast my additions get acted on.

From the site:

It happens all the time: You read an entry in an encyclopedia or other reputable source and think, "That's not right" or "They forgot this!"

Microsoft Corp.'s Encarta encyclopedia is testing a system that lets everyone be an editor -- in theory at least. Readers can suggest edits or additions to entries, although the changes are vetted by editors before they reach the page.

Encarta is not requiring such novice editors to identify themselves, said Gary Alt, Encarta's editorial director. But it is asking them to reveal the source of their information if possible, and the editorial staff will check for both factual errors and evidence of bias.

Cites and Insights (October 2004). Walt Crawford has a new issue up of his well done newsletter. In it, he has an article which has many good ideas on the pros and cons of the Web (and user created) encyclopedia Wikipedia. This is a good article and I e-mailed Mr. Crawford my thoughts on an additional problem area for Wikipedia.

I wrote -

Mr. Crawford:

I enjoyed reading your article on Wikipedia. There is one additional area though that you might want to address in a future look at Wikipedia.

Authors at Wikipedia are encouraged to copy public domain sources to create articles. The problem that this causes is that many of the Wikipedia articles are based on US Federal publications as all of these are in the public domain. While the government sources are generally good, they also have pro-American and other biases. For example, compare the History of Andorra article at Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Andorra) with the State Departments Background notes on Andorra (http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/3164.htm).
(Scroll down to history and compare.) There are many other national histories which are almost word for word copies of the US State Department Background Notes history data. Other articles were originally based on State Department writing as well but have been modified. Another example is in education. Compare the ERIC Digest Transformative Learning in Adulthood (http://www.ericfacility.net/databases/ERIC_Digests/ed423426.html) with the Wikipedia article Transformative Learning ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transformative_learning).

Another problem is the extensive use of old public domain information. The 1911 Encyclopedia Britannia is used heavily in many history articles. While this data is not bad, it is dated and the last century of scholarship is ignored. For example, see the article at Wikipedia on the Roman Emperor Maxentius (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxentius) compared with the 1911 encyclopedia article.

I still like Wikipedia but this continued reliance on old or governmentally produced information in an encyclopedia is clearly a problem.

Best wishes,

Michael Lorenzen
Head of Reference Services
Central Michigan University

Critical views of Wikipedia. This is an essay from Wikinfo that details some of the serious problems which are preventing Wikipedia from being an excellent reference source. Wikipedia has some merits (as I have posted previously) but there are some major issues which are hindering success.

From the site:

In a contrast to the Nupedia model, in which edit privileges were difficult to come by, Wikipedia offered edit privileges by default. Administrators revoke edit privileges at their discretion based on policies, and on their opinion of content or contributors.

Wikipedia, more so than other wiki services in early 2004, had become a main source for encyclopedic content redistributed by other sites. While this means that a much greater body of Internet content is freely available, it also means that any errors or political biases in Wikipedia are reproduced across the Internet to multiple sites...

In discussions of both policy and content, the loudest voices who attract the most supporters during the pendency of a discussion often dominate direction. Jim Wales's work under the title "God King" for several years encouraged new Wikipedia leaders to use cult-like language that discouraged opposition to his views and proposed policies. A review of user-histories at Wikipedia suggests that power users who spend several hours a day making small edits to numerous pages often dominate discussions, and comprise the most active elements of the administrative ranks. and that people who are qualified or interested in administrative functions may hold different interests from the people who are the best contributors.

Some users critical of the project have been blocked from discussions under such vague allegations as "trolling". Administrators usually claim users are excluded from on-line policy debates or votes for "behavioral reasons" and not for reasons related to a critical policy argument. Some administrators might not be adept at editorial skills that best resolve conflicts among contributors. An inability or lack of willingness among untrained administrators to consistently articulate what behavior - or rhetorical style - they find problematic might contribute to a less productive collaborative environment and lead to a continuation of conflict.

A related issue is ad hominem deletion or reversion of views without refutation, eliminating the contributions of several authors on the ad hominem grounds that a 'suspect' author contributed a few in the chain, and disregard of simple rules for deletion and being conservative about elimination of text. Accusations that one anonymous IP or pseudonym "is" a banned author seem to be quite common as well, and seem to justify for some administrators an extension of IP block tactics.

Another perceived flaw in Wikipedia is the lack of a common understanding on adding external links. Wikipedia (like all Wikis) has problems with wikispam. However, many users at Wikipedia feel obliged to remove most external links which are added to articles. This includes the vast majority which are legitimate links to sites that directly relate to the article at hand. Further, those who regularly add external links will find themselves being labeled as spammers and warned to cease their efforts or face being banned. This external link paranoia has driven many good editors away from Wikipedia.

Cunnan This is a wiki dedicated to the middle ages. It does not appear to have a lot of active editors but some of the articles are nice. As with all wikis, you can add and edit articles. The country articles are weak with very little history. I added a few links to try and improve them. Unfortunately, I got accused of spamming (damn link paranoia! The link was to history stuff not viagra or gambling). I think I have smoothed it over and will try again. This could turn into a nice site and I hope some librarians go over and help them out.

From the site:

"Welcome to Cunnan, a Wiki collecting information for re-enactors of the Middle Ages and Renaissance with a heavy slant towards members of the SCA. Cunnan is the largest SCA wiki in the world - anyone can edit our articles. You should be bold in updating pages! Articles can only be improved if people are contributing new information and improving old information. So add research information, how-to pages, event information and anything else you can think of. Cunnan should be applicable worldwide, so be mindful of regional differences - use comments such as "In Lochac...". If you see anything that is different in your area, add a note on your local variation."

Here are a few articles:

Middle Ages
Feast
Alchemy
Germany
France

Memory Alpha This is an encyclopedia of the Star Trek universe. It is based on the same software and model as Wikipedia. That means that anyone at any time can come along and add new articles and revise current ones. This project is nicely done and I am sure it is one of the best Trek reference sources out there. (I looked at some of the talk pages and noted heated discussions of what is and is not "official" canon. It is all fiction but what fiction is gospel and makes the encyclopedia!)

A couple of articles I looked at:

Klingon
James T. Kirk
USS Voyager
Earth
New Zealand

Disinfopedia This is a nice Wiki that allows users to collaborate on a directory of those who try to influence public opinion. It has a definite leftist bent (it is ran by the Center for Media & Democracy) but left wing organizations attempting to manipulate public opinion are also covered. The powers that be are also quick to kill spam and vandal edits.

From the site:

Welcome to Disinfopedia, a collaborative project to produce a directory of public relations firms, think tanks, industry-funded organizations and industry-friendly experts that work to influence public opinion and public policy on behalf of corporations, governments and special interests. Sponsored by the Center for Media and Democracy, the Disinfopedia was started in February 2003 and contributors are now working on 5075 articles.

Wikinfo This is another volunteer written online enyclopedia. It is a spin-off directory from Wikipedia using the same software but building it's own content.

Note on site:

"Wikinfo, or Internet-Encyclopedia, is a project to create a universal open content encyclopedia. The site was launched in July, 2003. So far, there are 20873 Wikinfo articles, with Wikipedia articles available via XML import. Wikinfo is a wiki: visit the help page and experiment in the sandbox to learn how you can edit any article. Inspired by Wikipedia, Wikinfo is different in a number of ways, notably, in editorial policy. Here, the main article on a subject is written from a sympathetic point of view; another difference is that Wikinfo is much more tolerant of a number of things Wikipedia is not."

Articles of note:

Information Literacy
Library Instruction
Library and Information Science
Active Learning
Michael Lorenzen
Coperative Education

Active learning - Wikipedia Here is the Wikipedia article on active learning. I recently added it to Wikipedia. Feel free to make changes if you want to improve it.

From the article:

"Research has consistently shown that traditional lecture methods, in which professors talk and students listen, dominate college and university classrooms. It is therefore important to know the nature of active learning, the empirical research on its use, the common obstacles and barriers that give rise to faculty members' resistance to interactive instructional techniques, and how faculty, faculty developers, administrators, and educational researchers can make real the promise of active learning."

"Until recently there has been no common definition of 'active learning.' Consequently, many believe that all learning is inherently active and that students are therefore 'actively involved' while listening to formal presentations in the classroom."

"Research suggests that the use of active learning techniques (as defined in the introduction) may have a positive impact upon students' learning. For example, several studies have shown that students prefer strategies that promote active learning rather than traditional lectures. Other research evaluating students' achievement has demonstrated that many strategies promoting active learning are comparable to lectures in promoting the mastery of content but superior to lectures in promoting the development of students' skills in thinking and writing."

Full article at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Active_learning.

Information literacy - Wikipedia Here is a new article at Wikipedia on information literacy. I think it is a good introduction to the topic. If you don't like it and want to make changes, go ahead. Wikipedia is open source and anyone can make additions and changes to the encyclopedia. (It sounds like this is a vandals paradise but the hundreds of heavy users of the site run a tight ship and have methods of banning and reverting the mischief of pranksters.)

From the article:

"Although alternate definitions for information literacy have been developed by educational institutions, professional organizations and individuals, they are likely to stem from the definition offered in the Final Report of the American Library Association (ALA) Presidential Committee on Information Literacy, "To be information literate, a person must be able to recognize when information is needed and have the ability to locate, evaluate and use effectively the needed information"(1989, p. 1). Since information may be presented in a number of formats, the term information applies to more than just the printed word. Other literacies such as visual, media, computer, network, and basic literacies are implicit in information literacy." Full article at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_literacy.