In some libraries patrons are not allowed to add information to library wikis, and a contributing factor to this trend may be an inability or a lack of willingness on the part of librarians to monitor the content patrons could add to a wiki. Users can add almost anything to a wiki, and it is easy for someone to include the wrong information, forget to double check facts, or even spam a page on purpose. It takes effort to make sure the information added by the public is accurate, and different factors such as budget issues, staff shortages, or lack of time could determine if a librarian is able to stay current with edits that are being made to the site.
Another possible reason for libraries not allowing patrons to edit wikis is a simple lack of trust. Since the public can put up nearly anything they want on a wiki, the librarians may think it is easier to do it themselves than to constantly monitor and edit the content patrons add.
Finally, even if they are aware they can add information to a wiki, many people will never try to edit a page. In the library setting, it takes time to organize and implement a wiki. If it is a public wiki and no one ever edits it or adds information, the site may not be successful. Some librarians might feel it is better to complete a wiki themselves and then have access to a reliable resource instead of dealing with the issues that come with allowing patrons to edit a wiki.
It seems to me libraries could get around this by having staff members screen all edits and posts to the wiki, as on Wikipedia. Not sure how feasible it would be to have a dedicated staff position for this, though.
ReplyDeleteI think you touched upon most, if not all, the reasons for why libraries/librarians may not allow all users to add to a library's wiki. You're absolutely right that it is a blend of mistrust, lack of time or effort and lack of resources. A public library nowadays has to spend what little funds they have wisely and little is left over for "pet" projects or anything new, without there being a solid reason or plan for sustaining the project.
ReplyDeleteThe thing is if they opened up the wikis, I don't think the librarians would have to do ALL the policing on the site. Just like with Wikipedia, the larger community will correct other users. While Wikipedia does make sure that spam is removed promptly, there are users out there with their favorite pages, which they will police themselves. This, however, requires trust on the part of the library/librarian and a willingness to delegate the responsibility for editing to someone else.
Trust is a major part of collaborative projects. In viewing the history of some Wiki pages, it’s evident how much time is required in maintaining the entries as well. As M.Clark mentions, I think you’ve addressed the main reservations that libraries may have in allowing patrons to add to their wikis. Thanks,
ReplyDelete