Wiki Case Studies

The Bull Run Library wiki is not very well organized. From the frontpage, the user doesn’t really know what kind of information can and cannot be found on the wiki. When I went into recent edits, I found out that there was a travel page. However, I would have no way of knowing that this exists without having stumbled upon it. I think some of their organization issues could be resolved by making better use of the sidebar. On a side note, I’d love a way to know if a link is internal or external without having to click on it.

The Butler Wikiref states clearly its purpose on the frontpage and gives explanation of how to navigate the site. Stating its purpose is great for two reasons. First, users can find information more easily and know what they will and won’t find on the wiki. Secondly, anyone wishing to contribute to the wiki will know what is and isn’t appropriate. The wiki also provides some basic explanation of what a wiki actually is, as well as how to use it. Compared to some of the other case studies, this wiki is not very pretty, but fairly easy to navigate and use.

I also found the Princeton Public Library Booklovers wiki easy to navigate because of its organization. The FAQ section that explains its purpose and what a wiki is can be easily spotted at the top of the page. The section of reviews is also well organized according to genre. The user doesn’t have to spend a lot of time thinking to know what the wiki is about and how to use it. This wiki has a clear and narrow purpose (book reviews), which I think is a great way to start with a new technology. Users can ease their way into using wikis rather than being overwhelmed because the whole library website or catalogue uses the unfamiliar technology.

USC Aiken Gregg-Graniteville Library

I couldn’t really see how this was a wiki. If it is a wiki, it certainly does not make it easy for its users to edit/add/delete content. While I found blog features, I didn’t find any features that identify it as a wiki. Did I miss something?

The SJCPL Subject Guides wiki is taking advantage of the levels of control that some wiki engines allow. Only librarians can edit the wiki. Users of the wiki can leave comments only. I suppose then that the reason for using a wiki technology (rather than a regular website) is for ease of use rather than capitalizing on the knowledge of the outside community. Perhaps given time, they might find that they’re willing to relinguish a little of that control in favour or lessening their workload and benefiting from their users’ expertise. Once again, I find myself liking the interface of mediawiki. It provides good (and familiar) organization through its use of categories. It’s easy to navigate and the user knows what can and can’t be changed because of the explanation provided.

Like the Princeton Public Library wiki, the Wyoming Authors wiki is easy to navigate because of their organization in the sidebar. Sensitive to their users’ possible lack of familiarity of wikis, they’ve provided good explanations of what the wiki is and does and what role the users can play. Unlike many wikis, there has been an attempt to make it prettier.

Another sidenote:

I wrote this blog entry in word before putting it on my blog and realized that when I put asterisks before and after words, it makes them bold. Isn’t this wiki syntax?