Wikis

Remember these? by nathanborror

Well, we're nearly finished. After being sucked in by Youtube last time watching frivolous videos (all in the name of research!), I felt it was time I did some proper work. To ease my guilt I donned the hair shirt and decided to attack the stockcheck single-handed. Not in quite the same league as Ellen MacArthur sailing solo around the world but still a big undertaking. Thus, I was pleasantly surprised when I managed to complete it in three days although I only did the open shelf books and not the journals or the rare book collection. So after checking through over 5,000 books I found two missing, despite the prescence of security gates designed to emit death rays to anyone trying to steal our stock (o.k. so it only has a loud alarm and flashing lights - the budget wouldn't stretch to death rays).

Penance paid, I took a look at some wikis. As time is slipping away before we must complete Cam23 I am going to take the easy option and blog about Wikipedia. A free online encyclopaedia is a wonderful tool and unlike a paper version can be updated instantly. Entries are easy to find and there is probably one for almost anything. There are links to other entries creating a vast network. For example on the entry for Queen Elizabeth II there are links in the text to family members, countries in the Commonwealth, and historical events from her lifetime. The point of a wiki is that it can be edited by anyone which is the major drawback to Wikipedia. Misinformation can be posted either in error or deliberately and as Wikipedia is so vast it is difficult to check the veracity of all the information on it. Unless you know the information to be true, you should check other sources before taking it as fact.

I think that wikis resemble Google docs with the principle of creating something that can be edited by other people. The difference is in scale as wikis can be changed by almost anyone and Google docs only by selected people. The Library runs a small field course library and we need to change the way the list of books is arranged. I would like to produce an updated list and get input from other people on its construction but I think this would be a job better suited to Google docs as I would restrict it to a handful of people.

And so, the end is nigh ...

Linkedin

LinkedIn smurfs by 99zeros

I have had a week's break from blogging for two reasons: the first being that the Librarian and I embarked on a major stock check of the rare book collection, trying to discover how much of it is catalogued online. We made the wild and totally unfounded assumption that it was all on there somewhere. The first hour quickly disabused us of that hope. We finished the basic checking of over 6000 books in a week but the queries and adding of missing records will keep me busy for much longer. The second reason is that after Facebook I needed a lie down in a darkened room with a damp cloth on my forehead before I felt able to tackle the next Thing. Last Wednesday, faced with a choice of more blogging or poking about among old and dusty tomes, I'm afraid that age and dust proved to be the greater temptation.

OK, finished with digression. Must concentrate. I looked at all of the suggested profiles on Linkedin. Some had more on than others, like Facebook you can reveal as little or as much about yourself as you like. The big difference is that Facebook is more of a personal networking site whereas Linkedin is solely professional. You can put your CV up there and find other people in the same areas of business. All users wanting to see the whole of your profile have to ask first so you can reject any undesirable suitors. Twitter feeds can also be added to a profile but this would depend on the kind of tweets you receive. Should a profile be completely professional or does it matter if some of the personal sneaks in?

I can see how this would be a useful tool in the business world (and popular with Smurfs as well!) but less so in the library community.