Ask librarians what they think about Wikipedia and you might get some interesting answers. Some will throw up their hands about the laziness of the Google generation and their overdependence on Wikipedia. Some will fatalistically describe the excellent collections at their libraries that are being ignored in favour of shallow internet resources. Some see it as the "competition". And some will tell you it's the greatest thing since sliced bread.
Wikipedia and libraries are in the same business. Both institutions want to make as much knowledge available to as many people as possible, free of charge. Despite these shared aims, the two groups have remained largely distant. Of course, there are librarians who are Wikimedians, and there are libraries that have worked with Wikipedia's GLAM projects. There's Wikipedia Loves Libraries. Wikipedians have developed tools and links to help integrate library resources, but these remain few and underused. Libraries contain vast stores of knowledge, and many want to meet Wikipedia halfway, somehow. How can Wikipedia better bridge the gap to that knowledge?
One barrier to integration is Wikipedia's ad hoc categorization system. In its early days, Wikipedia eschewed the standard organisation schemes in use by libraries, such as the Library of Congress' subject headings. Libraries assign various identifiers to their items; Wikipedia just shoots for a unique title, and maybe a disambiguation term in brackets. The categories come later, and are added (or not added) at the whim of editors.
Some efforts have been made to integrate Wikipedia's pages with larger, library-friendly metadata frameworks. The Virtual International Authority File (VIAF) project is an attempt to unify the various authority file systems used by national libraries. A template giving VIAF data links has been added to many of our biographical articles (read the RFC on the VIAF template). Libraries also benefit from the Special:BookSources page, which is linked through our International Standard Book Number fields in the citation templates. This page allows readers to use union catalogs, such as Online Computer Library Center (OCLC)'s WorldCat service, and find the linked item in a nearby library. OCLC also provides a link to books through the book infobox. However, these links and services provide no listing of a local library's holdings on a topic; they only link to specific items as requested.
Librarians have been exploring different ways to link up their collections with corresponding Wikipedia articles. Efforts by the University of Washington and the University of Houston focused on adding external links to relevant collections pages. [1] Some have sought out GLAM partnerships with experienced editors to better integrate their resources into Wikipedia.
John Mark Ockerbloom ( User:JohnMarkOckerbloom), a digital library architect and planner at the University of Pennsylvania, has devised a different platform, called "Forward to Libraries". This service uses the Wikipedia article title as a subject or keyword search in the user's library of choice, using the library's online public access catalog, or OPAC. One can choose a library from a sub-page, or go directly to a library of choice by allowing browser cookies. Ockerbloom discussed his ideas in a blog post last week. Boing Boing contributor, fiction author and Wikipedian Cory Doctorow was impressed, calling the template "a fabulous proposal for creating research synergies between libraries and Wikipedia". [2] Ockerbloom's new template is at Template:Library resources box. For an example of its use on a live page, see the "Further reading" section of Louisa May Alcott.
The Signpost interviewed Ockerbloom last week via email:
How did the idea of the template come about?
You mention the "Google-Wikipedia-References" tendency in younger researchers in your blog. What worries you about the GWR search trend?
How does a library link up with the FTL service?
“ | I want to make it as easy as possible for people looking for information in Wikipedia to find resources in the libraries they use and trust the most. | ” |
Do you think the Wikipedia movement is indicative of an eventual total digitization of knowledge?
Templates that create "box" style displays on pages are not universally accepted among editors. Many find them aesthetically unpleasing, and debate their utility. Templates can also increase the load times of pages, disproportionally affecting those on poor connections. If there are too many in an article, the reader has to endure a "template ghetto" at the bottom of the page. As of writing, the Library resources box template hasn't been subjected to wide community scrutiny, although it has already attracted interest at its talk page. It remains to be seen how this idea will evolve, or whether it will gain support among Wikipedians.
There is no one way for a library to integrate its resources with Wikipedia. The community has not, at this point, prioritized these kind of relationships. One thing is certain, though: libraries want to work with Wikipedia. Will we meet them in the middle?
Ask librarians what they think about Wikipedia and you might get some interesting answers. Some will throw up their hands about the laziness of the Google generation and their overdependence on Wikipedia. Some will fatalistically describe the excellent collections at their libraries that are being ignored in favour of shallow internet resources. Some see it as the "competition". And some will tell you it's the greatest thing since sliced bread.
Wikipedia and libraries are in the same business. Both institutions want to make as much knowledge available to as many people as possible, free of charge. Despite these shared aims, the two groups have remained largely distant. Of course, there are librarians who are Wikimedians, and there are libraries that have worked with Wikipedia's GLAM projects. There's Wikipedia Loves Libraries. Wikipedians have developed tools and links to help integrate library resources, but these remain few and underused. Libraries contain vast stores of knowledge, and many want to meet Wikipedia halfway, somehow. How can Wikipedia better bridge the gap to that knowledge?
One barrier to integration is Wikipedia's ad hoc categorization system. In its early days, Wikipedia eschewed the standard organisation schemes in use by libraries, such as the Library of Congress' subject headings. Libraries assign various identifiers to their items; Wikipedia just shoots for a unique title, and maybe a disambiguation term in brackets. The categories come later, and are added (or not added) at the whim of editors.
Some efforts have been made to integrate Wikipedia's pages with larger, library-friendly metadata frameworks. The Virtual International Authority File (VIAF) project is an attempt to unify the various authority file systems used by national libraries. A template giving VIAF data links has been added to many of our biographical articles (read the RFC on the VIAF template). Libraries also benefit from the Special:BookSources page, which is linked through our International Standard Book Number fields in the citation templates. This page allows readers to use union catalogs, such as Online Computer Library Center (OCLC)'s WorldCat service, and find the linked item in a nearby library. OCLC also provides a link to books through the book infobox. However, these links and services provide no listing of a local library's holdings on a topic; they only link to specific items as requested.
Librarians have been exploring different ways to link up their collections with corresponding Wikipedia articles. Efforts by the University of Washington and the University of Houston focused on adding external links to relevant collections pages. [1] Some have sought out GLAM partnerships with experienced editors to better integrate their resources into Wikipedia.
John Mark Ockerbloom ( User:JohnMarkOckerbloom), a digital library architect and planner at the University of Pennsylvania, has devised a different platform, called "Forward to Libraries". This service uses the Wikipedia article title as a subject or keyword search in the user's library of choice, using the library's online public access catalog, or OPAC. One can choose a library from a sub-page, or go directly to a library of choice by allowing browser cookies. Ockerbloom discussed his ideas in a blog post last week. Boing Boing contributor, fiction author and Wikipedian Cory Doctorow was impressed, calling the template "a fabulous proposal for creating research synergies between libraries and Wikipedia". [2] Ockerbloom's new template is at Template:Library resources box. For an example of its use on a live page, see the "Further reading" section of Louisa May Alcott.
The Signpost interviewed Ockerbloom last week via email:
How did the idea of the template come about?
You mention the "Google-Wikipedia-References" tendency in younger researchers in your blog. What worries you about the GWR search trend?
How does a library link up with the FTL service?
“ | I want to make it as easy as possible for people looking for information in Wikipedia to find resources in the libraries they use and trust the most. | ” |
Do you think the Wikipedia movement is indicative of an eventual total digitization of knowledge?
Templates that create "box" style displays on pages are not universally accepted among editors. Many find them aesthetically unpleasing, and debate their utility. Templates can also increase the load times of pages, disproportionally affecting those on poor connections. If there are too many in an article, the reader has to endure a "template ghetto" at the bottom of the page. As of writing, the Library resources box template hasn't been subjected to wide community scrutiny, although it has already attracted interest at its talk page. It remains to be seen how this idea will evolve, or whether it will gain support among Wikipedians.
There is no one way for a library to integrate its resources with Wikipedia. The community has not, at this point, prioritized these kind of relationships. One thing is certain, though: libraries want to work with Wikipedia. Will we meet them in the middle?
Discuss this story