To Wiki or Not To Wiki

An Art Historian Edits Wikipedia - Should Everyone?

I was recently preparing for a presentation on collective intelligence and the library and I found myself thinking about the old wiki debate. Yes, I know this is not a new debate and it comes from many sources  but during my preparation I had a moment of clarity and considering that these moments are rare, I thought I should work out my thoughts on the topic.

Largely librarians have debated collective intelligence initiatives such as Wikipedia since their creation. As librarians we have spent a large part of our career attempting to provide context to students and asking them to critically evaluate resources and to learn the importance of access within a given system. This causes librarians to see collective intelligence initiatives, like Wikipedia, as in direct opposition to those endeavors. For librarians Wikipedia raises questions, such as:

• How can definitive statements be made about a topic when there are no credentials given?
• How can there be trust of the information when those involved in the creation of the object don’t work in unison?
• How can there be a focus to work when there is no guiding voice or control to bring in to clarity the multitude of ideas?
• And in support of that, why would experts be expected to get involved in Wikipedia when they have more prestigious outputs such as articles and books?

The issue is that librarains support Wikipedia, and collective intelligence initiatives, insofar as a expert is involved. This falls back to our understanding of what is authoritative and we would certainly support Wikipedia if it was more like the Encyclopedia Britanica because at the very least there is authority, context, and a system that supports “fact” checking. Something that Wikipedia doesn’t have.

Now, my moment of clarity.

I would put forth that the “right” credentials and knowledge doesn’t necessarily mean people who are already a part of a community due to their education or position within a system of authority, but the “right” people are people who are engaged out of self selection. Individuals who participate in the development of content tend to participate because there is some knowledge and interest. Certainly some sources of information will be more authoritative, but the act of working towards a common shared goal of providing content is in itself a highly important act.

For example, the research and writing process is an iterative one, a concept that is sometimes difficult to impart to students. This process of researching, writing a draft, and re-writing is something that is encouraged in academia. Collective Intelligence initiatives that encourage the amateur voice allows for disagreements, arguments, dialogue, and teachable moments where it simply isn’t about stating an opinion, but about working out the very nature of the topic. That dialogue that occurs is just as important as the final “right” information as it shows process and mirrors how we grow knowledge. Collective Intelligence initiatives such as Wikipedia mirror this process. We make a hypothesis, we research, we write and rewrite, and then we gain feedback and the content changes.

Could this be how we can reconceptualize our understanding of Wikipedia?  Can we engage with it by thinking about how research and writing is created and can that affect how our students and faculty/researchers understand the uses of collective intelligence technologies in the classroom?  I think this warrants further debate and maybe more thought on my part.

Some excellent sources to read on this topic would be an article by  Jaron Lanier and the librarians response, Collectivism vs. individualism in a wiki world: Librarians respond to jaron lanier’s essay “digital maoism: The hazards of the new online collectivism.” Serials Review (March 2007). Serials Review,  33 (1), p. 45-53.

OLA Super Conference 2009 – Poster Session

This was my first time at the OLA Super Conference as a “real” librarian.  I had volunteered at the conference before and had the opportunity to go to the expo, but this time I was able to fully experience the conference in a completely different way.  I thought as a new librarian that I wanted to contribute to the conference, but having never created a presentation for a room of my experienced colleagues, I wanted a way to deliver content without the pressure.  Voila, a poster session!


My poster session titled “York University – Web 2.0 Workshops for Library Staff,” outlined the creation, delivery, and assessment of Web 2.0 workshops YUSA1 staff to learn about the new and innovative technologies available to web users. The sessions focused on a specific Web 2.0 application (e.g. Library Thing, StumbleUpon, etc.) and required the participants to create their own accounts, provide content, and discuss their ideas and opinions during the sessions.  The poster content included a description of the workshop, handouts from the instruction (including information related to the blog), and a discussion of staff need for professional development in a library context.


It was a wonderful experience to meet so many librarians who had either developed similar sessions or were in the process of creating them for their own library community. I found myself surprisingly, and happily, involved in discussions on Web 2.0 as a delivery tool for research and as an output for cultural expression. While I thought my poster session would be a forum for me to share my experiences with others, little did I realize how much I would gain from my colleagues in return. Thank you for making my experience a positive one!