LIS 518 - LECTURE 3-4
Lecture: Selection and evaluation of sources/information
The selection and evaluation of sources is very important in reference work. You use selection criteria for buying and adding to the
collection and for recommending items to patrons. Some general guidelines on reference sources (print or electronic): Authority-who wrote or published it? their credentials; are articles signed for the entries? Scope-- what does it cover? does it cover what it
says it will? For example, if is "international" is it English speaking world international only? Audience-- is it age appropriate. If it is a
dictionary for children, are the words, definitions, readability appropriate? Readability- is it clear and precise; it is audience
appropriate?-- specialized, scholarly, popular, general, age. Print size and font-- is it readable? Graphics-- fonts, pictures,
illustrations appropriate? Are they distractions or do they truly add to the value? Cost-- is the cost worth the item? Does the
information appear anywhere else so perhaps you don't need to purchase? Physical components: binding: can you open the book up
and photocopy from it without breaking the binding? Is it too large and unwieldy for no apparent good reason? Bias/objectivity-- fair
and balanced writing? pushing a point of view without stating so? excluding groups (of course you would not critique an encyclopedia
of women composers for not having men listed if the title says that it is only women).
Attached is a chapter on the selection and evaluation of reference sources from the Bopp and Smith textbook Reference
and Information Services: An Introduction, 3rd Ed. [READ ARTICLE-printed 2/11/10]
Librarians are looked to for evaluating information. Helping librarians and also developed by librarians are sites that help to "bust"
hoaxes, misinformation, rumors. Here are two:
Librarians' Internet Index: Quacks, Rumors, & Hoaxes
http://lii.org/pub/subtopic/4151
Snopes
http://www.snopes.com/
This lecture thread will begin with encyclopedias.
From Merriam-Webster dictionary: " a work th
at contains information on all branches of knowledge or treats comprehensively a particular branch of knowledge usually in articles
arranged alphabetically often by subject"
Attached is Chapter 18, "Encyclopedias" by Holly Crawford from the Bopp and Smith text, pages 433-459. [READ ARTICLEprinted 2/11/10]
A dictionary provides correct spelling, correct pronunciation, and definitions of words. Dictionaries may also provide word history or
etymology, origin of phrases, and usuage. Online dictionaries often have audio portions where you can hear the correct
pronunciation of a word. Go to Merriam-Webster Online http://www.merriam-webster.com/ and look up these words to hear how
they are pronounced:
1. segue
2. pariah
3. lambaste
Print dictionaries have special features as well. If possible for you, find a desk or abridged dictionary in your home or in a library. Go
to the back. See if it has biographical listings, listings of colleges and universities, geographical listings or other such information.
Definition in print dictionaries also often contain expanded information beyond definitions. Look up these words in a print
dictionary if it is possible for you:
1.Currency
2. Measurement
3. Alphabet
Describe what you find.
From the Cassell's and Hiremath text, here is the chapter on dictionaries attached. [READ ARTICLE-printed 2/11/10]
Attached is an example of a post to Wikipedia on librarians that was taken down shortly after its appearance. Before opening it, be
aware that derogatory/profane language is used. I am including this because it shows the need for editing which Wikipedia has
embraced.
“Librarian: Librarians are evil,mean bitches.”
Attached is an article on young people's perceptions and usage of Wikipedia. It is available full text through the Library, Information
Science & Technology Abstracts database accessible through the UB Libraries if you find that the formatting in the attachment is not
readable.
Young people's perceptions and usage of Wikipedia. By: Luyt, Brendan, Zainal, Chia Zuhaila Bte Chia, Mayo, Olivia Victoria
Petines, Yun, Tan Siow, Information Research, 13681613, Dec2008, Vol. 13, Issue 4
Database:
Library, Information Science & Technology Abstracts with Full Text
*Title:*
Young people's perceptions and usage of Wikipedia.
*Authors:*
Luyt, Brendan
Zainal, Chia Zuhaila Bte Chia
Mayo, Olivia Victoria Petines
Yun, Tan Siow
*Source:*
Information Research; Dec2008, Vol. 13 Issue 4, p50-50, 1p
*Abstract:*
Introduction. This exploratory study investigated the perception and
usage of Wikipedia among young people. Method. Fifteen respondents
aged thirteen to twenty-four were selected for the study. The
respondents were composed of secondary and tertiary students, and
recent tertiary level graduates. An interview schedule was designed
to explore user experiences at three levels: the initial encounter
with Wikipedia, the time when the user felt comfortable with
Wikipedia, and the user's current state. Questions were open-ended
and semi-structured to allow for probing. Interviews were conducted
over a span of two weeks with each interview lasting 30-45 minutes.
Follow-up questions were asked of some of the respondents for
clarification purposes. Analysis. Interview data was used to test
Wikipedia, viewed as a technology, against the model of
technological appropriation developed by Carroll et al. for their
own study of mobile phone use among young people. Results. We found
that although Wikipedia is initially attractive for young people, it
generally fails to become deeply integrated (appropriated) into the
everyday lives of users, instead remaining an instrumental tool for
the fulfilment of a narrow range of tasks. We also found that over
time respondents do become aware of the problems of accuracy that
Wikipedia poses. Conclusions. Given that Wikipedia has not assumed
the role of a key technology in the lives of the young people
studied here, concern over its use by educators may be overstated.
Also, the fact that the respondents were aware of the drawbacks to
its use should make the message of the need for checking alternative
sources an easier one to impart to students. The key conclusion,
however, is the need for those wishing to design more popular
information systems to take into account the deeper needs of users
to experiment with technology in order to make it fit their lives
rather than the other way round. This is something that even
Wikipedia, it seems, has been unable to achieve. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]
Copyright of Information Research is the property of Information
Research and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple
sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express
written permission. However, users may print, download, or email
articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No
warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer
to the original published version of the material for the full
abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------Young people's perceptions and usage of Wikipedia
Introduction
Introduction. This exploratory study investigated the perception and
usage of Wikipedia among young people.
Method. Fifteen respondents aged thirteen to twenty-four were selected
for the study. The respondents were composed of secondary and tertiary
students, and recent tertiary level graduates. An interview schedule was
designed to explore user experiences at three levels: the initial
encounter with Wikipedia, the time when the user felt comfortable with
Wikipedia, and the user's current state. Questions were open-ended and
semi-structured to allow for probing. Interviews were conducted over a
span of two weeks with each interview lasting 30-45 minutes. Follow-up
questions were asked of some of the respondents for clarification purposes.
Analysis. Interview data was used to test Wikipedia, viewed as a
technology, against the model of technological appropriation developed
by Carroll et al. for their own study of mobile phone use among young
people.
Results. We found that although Wikipedia is initially attractive for
young people, it generally fails to become deeply integrated
(appropriated) into the everyday lives of users, instead remaining an
instrumental tool for the fulfilment of a narrow range of tasks. We also
found that over time respondents do become aware of the problems of
accuracy that Wikipedia poses.
Conclusions. Given that Wikipedia has not assumed the role of a key
technology in the lives of the young people studied here, concern over
its use by educators may be overstated. Also, the fact that the
respondents were aware of the drawbacks to its use should make the
message of the need for checking alternative sources an easier one to
impart to students. The key conclusion, however, is the need for those
wishing to design more popular information systems to take into account
the deeper needs of users to experiment with technology in order to make
it fit their lives rather than the other way round. This is something
that even Wikipedia, it seems, has been unable to achieve.
A number of studies have examined the accuracy and structure of
Wikipedia (Chesney 2005; Cohen and Rozenzweig 2004; Emigh and Herring
2005; Voss 2005; Viegas et al. 2007), but little has been written to
explain why people are drawn to it in the first place. This exploratory
study aims to investigate how young people, one of the major user groups
of Wikipedia and of most concern to educators, perceive and utilize this
tool from the perspective that this technology is socially constructed
by users as well as designers.
Wikipedia is a free, Web-based encyclopaedia running on wiki technology,
a technology that allows anyone to quickly create or edit Web pages.
Wikipedia has a huge breadth of content, having to date approximately
7.9 million articles in 253 languages (Wikimedia 2007). Unlike
traditional reference tools which have more stringent review processes
involving subject experts and professional editors, Wikipedia relies on
the collaborative effort of volunteers, sourcing its content from more
than 75,000 active contributors (Wikimedia 2007; Wikipedia 2007). The
advantage this is that anyone who wants to contribute may do so and
articles are updated quickly, in fact, having the ability to change as
events unfold. The disadvantage is that the same thing that fuels
Wikipedia (the ability to be freely edited by anyone) has been the
source of issues and controversies regarding its accuracy and
reliability. Despite this, Wikipedia remains popular and is among the
top ten most visited Websites in the world, only trailing giants such as
Yahoo.com and Google.com (Alexa 2007). An April 2007 survey in the
United States of 2,200 people aged 18 and older found that 36% consulted
Wikipedia. In terms of age, 44% of 18-29 year olds use Wikipedia, while
a lower percentage of usage was registered for adults aged 30 and older,
suggesting that it is especially popular with young people and making it
no surprise that Wikipedia is ranked the leading Website in the survey's
educational and reference category in terms of traffic generated (Rainie
and Tancer 2007).
Previous Work <#toc>
Despite its popularity, Wikipedia has attracted relatively little
scholarly attention and what attention has been given appears to focus
on issues of accuracy and reliability. As far as the authors are aware
no studies have been conducted on the perception of Wikipedia held by
one of its most numerous user groups: young people. However, there is a
growing body of work on the use of the Internet by this user group.
In an early study, Fidel et al. (1999) examined the searching behaviour
of high school students in the United States. They found that students
generally enjoyed using the Web to find information for their projects.
When asked to report what features most impressed them they noted the
diversity of information, its currency and the ease with which it was
accessible. Interestingly, although they believed that they already
possessed sufficient Internet searching skills (mostly entering keywords
into search boxes) they frequently had problems finding the information
they needed to complete assignments at least within the short time frame
that they considered reasonable for such tasks.
Simon's notions of bounded rationality and satisficing (Simon 1957)
inform Agosto's (2002) study of the Web decision-making behaviour of
American youth. They found that young people faced constraints on their
searching which they divided into three categories: time constraints,
cognitive constraints and physical constraints. All of these prevent a
more complete search, hence creating a situation of bounded rationality.
Agosto's respondents employed strategies of reduction and termination
rules to deal with constraints, although frequently these strategies
ended the search before a satisficing result was obtained (Agosto 2002).
Valenza (2006) divides the issues identified in her overview of the
research on youth information-seeking behaviour into four categories:
cognitive, affective, social and physical. The lack of appropriate
skills (cognitive issues) coupled with limited equipment (physical
issues) and a lack of coaching opportunities (social) creates a
situation where students feel confused and frustrated despite believing
that they possess good searching skills (affective issues).
Most studies of Internet searching behaviour or use by young people
focus on searching and evaluating skills. However, a few studies have
tackled deeper questions. In her meta-analysis of the literature,
Dresang (2005), for example, argues that despite the negativity
surrounding much of the literature about youth and the Internet, it is
important not 'to miss the golden nuggets embedded in these studies.'
(p. 182). Dresang specifically draws attention to the ease with which
children take to non-linear text as an example of the positive aspect of
their information-seeking behaviour.
Watson (1998), employing a strictly qualitative approach, set out to
explore the meaning the Internet held for Grade 8 students in the United
States, a far rarer research goal in the literature. A number of themes
were developed through interaction with her respondents. There is not
enough space to discuss each theme here, but a few need to be
highlighted as they are of relevance to the current study. The first of
these is that students associated the Internet with certain notions of
time. They differentiated between the frequent necessity of using time
efficiently versus the pleasure of browsing for the unexpected and they
stressed the need to be patient in the face of the amount of information
available online. The students also related the Internet to certain
skills including the ability to develop a search strategy, but also
abilities to skim quickly through large quantities of text and to be
able to define the object of the search in the first place.
McMillan and Morrison (2006) also employed qualitative methods (in this
case autobiographical essays) to examine the meaning of Internet
technology held by young adult college students in the United States.
This interesting study sought to 'understand how the Internet is
integrated into their daily lives and their social interaction'
(McMillan and Morrison 2006: 74). Among its many findings, the article
echoes some of the points made by library and information studies
scholars, namely that young people are overwhelmed by the amount of
information available and that some of them are frustrated in their
inability to determine good from bad in the online environment. More
optimistically, however, the study also found that 'young people are
aware of both benefits and dangers associated with interactive
technologies' although that did not seem to affect their actual patterns
of Internet use.
In our own study, we focus not on the Internet in general, but on what
is arguably one of its key applications and, while we want to explore
how students use Wikipedia, we also want to move away from a
preoccupation over the rightness or wrongness of its use, to explore
instead the meanings and perceptions held by its young users about the
role it plays in their lives. In this, we follow Sundin and Haider who
have explored the various discourses surrounding information use in the
debate over Wikipedia versus Citizendium, not with the motive to prove
one side correct, but to understand the complex and often overlapping
positions taken by participants in the debate (Sundin and Haider 2007).
To do so we use Carroll's technological appropriation model (Carroll et
al. 2001) which in turn is grounded in the social construction of
technology movement.
The social construction of technology <#toc>
In recent years social factors affecting technological development have
been the subject of intense interest in the scholarly community.
Bijker's Social Construction of Technology approach, for example, places
social groups at the forefront of technological design (Bijker 1997).
For those following Bijker's approach, technology is characterized by a
certain interpretative flexibility in that the meaning (the problem for
which the technology exists as a solution) assigned to the technology
can differ between particular social groups. For Bijker, these different
meanings are what determine the trajectory of technological change as
designers try to develop modifications that better fit the meanings
assigned by key social groups to the technology. Bijker's own research
focused on a number of technologies, including the development of the
bicycle (Bijker 1997).
Latour and Callon have also developed an influential theory of
technological development that focuses on social groups and
actor-network theory (Callon 1986; Latour 1987). In Latour's and
Callon's views, technologies become successful as they develop extensive
and interlocking networks of actors (both human and non-human) around
themselves. These actor-networks are actively cultivated by the
inventors and designers of technology who are required not only to
enroll a sufficient number of actors, but also to ensure that they are
able to control their behaviour. A variety of translations that work to
lock actors into networks on favourable terms for the technology achieve
these aims, but as Latour shows in one study of Aramis, an innovative
personal train system developed in France, they are not always
successful (Latour 1996). Networks are inherently unstable and prone to
fall apart without intensive maintenance.
Bijker, Latour and Callon are involved in projects that seek to put
social concerns at the heart of technological development. Moving closer
to our own focus in this paper on information and communication
technologies for young people is the work of Carroll et al. (2001) who
have developed a model of how technology is appropriated or socially
constructed by users, from their studies of how young people approached
one particular technology, the mobile phone (Carroll et al. 2001). For
Carroll et al., technology is initially developed with an implicit model
of how it is to be used embedded within its design. However, over a
period of time this technology-as-designed is modified by users who take
it apart and re-constitute it according to their own interests and
abilities. This process of appropriation, to use Carroll's term, has
three possible outcomes. In the first, non-appropriation, the technology
or some of its features, are essentially ignored. However, if users
choose instead to experiment with the technology, they may engage in
modifying it to suit their own needs and interests. If this takes place
users are said to have appropriated the technology (the second outcome).
If they do not, disappropriation occurs instead as users fail to make
the technology fit into their lives in any substantial way (the third
outcome). In a later version of the model, Carroll et al. add an
additional filter at the start of the process of appropriation. They
posit that certain characteristics of the technology will act as
attractors and others as repellents to users considering whether to
experiment with it (Carroll et al. 2002).
In their examination of mobile phones Carroll et al. (2002) identified a
number of attractors that made young people want to experiment further
with the technology: convenience, control and fashionability, among
others. Mobile phones seem uniquely placed to capture the attention of
young people and the study did not discover any repellents at work, with
most participants moving on to the point of trying to fit the technology
more deeply into their lives. At this point, however, the authors
discovered a number of appropriation and disappropriation criteria at
work. Social management was especially important as an appropriation
criterion. Mobile phones became a kind of glue holding together the
social groups the young people belonged to. Leisure activities and added
security were also found to be important parts of everyday life that the
phones could be integrated into. However, the study found
disappropriation criteria at work as well. Cost was chief among these;
other factors included health risks and the size of the phones
themselves. Nevertheless, for most of the respondents, the decision of
whether to adopt mobile phone technology into their everyday lives was
relatively straightforward. Appropriation criteria easily outweighed
disappropriation criteria.
In this study we apply the concepts developed by Carroll's study of
mobile phones to a different technology, Wikipedia. Is it possible to
identify attractors, repellents and appropriation or disappropriation
criteria for this technology. If so, what is the outcome? Do young
people succeed in integrating Wikipedia into their everyday lives or
not? Answering these questions will shed light on young people's use and
perception of Wikipedia.
Method <#toc>
Fifteen respondents aged 13 to 24 were selected for the study. Criterion
sampling was employed, using educational level and educational
background or specialization and previous experience with Wikipedia.
These criteria were set for three reasons. First, it was necessary to
eliminate from the sample students whose course of study might have
given them more insight into Wikipedia's operation, or awareness about
the issues that surround its use (for example, information studies
programmes). Secondly, we wanted to obtain approximately equal numbers
of respondents for the different age groups we chose to study. Thirdly,
we wanted to interview students who already had several years experience
with Wikipedia. The respondents were composed of secondary and tertiary
students and recent tertiary graduates. An interview schedule was
designed with open-ended and semi-structured questions to allow for
probing. Before each interview, the respondents were briefed on the
structure and flow of the interview. Since all of the respondents had
prior knowledge and use of Wikipedia, they were asked to recall their
experience in using it at three levels: their initial encounter with
Wikipedia, the point at which they became comfortable using it and their
current use of Wikipedia. Interviews were conducted over a span of two
weeks with each interview lasting 30 to 45 minutes. Follow-up questions
were asked of some of the respondents for clarification purposes.
Findings and discussion <#toc> Initial encounters with Wikipedia <#toc>
Most respondents recalled that they first encountered Wikipedia through
search engines results. Some pointed out that Wikipedia articles would
almost always come out on top of the list of search results, making it
quite difficult to miss. Six of the respondents specifically mentioned
that they discovered Wikipedia through the Google search engine, while
others did so through various other search engines. On the other hand,
respondents who received recommendations to use Wikipedia did so from
friends, classmates, or siblings. Only one respondent, a secondary
student, said that she received recommendation to use Wikipedia from her
teacher. Other respondents answered that they started to use Wikipedia
both through self-discovery and through recommendations. In these cases
the recommendations acted as a spur to check what had previously been
ignored during their search engine sessions.
Attractors
Carroll's model of technology appropriation posits that after the
initial encounter with a technology, further exploration by users
depends on the presence of attractors. Coverage or breadth of topics is
at the top of the list of attractors for Wikipedia. It was cited by many
of the respondents as one of the major factors that led them to choose
to explore Wikipedia further. Respondents generally perceived Wikipedia
as an endless database of information on all conceivable topics. Summing
up this general consensus was the comment of one respondent who claimed
that 'there is a lot of information available about almost anything you
want to find out or research on'. Similarly, a recent graduate was even
more specific and stated that 'Wikipedia has all sorts of information
you want to find. It provides the definition of all searches from
politics to entertainment'. Depth of information was also a popular
reason why respondents explored Wikipedia. It was observed that the
respondents' reference to links generally referred to the depth of
information found in Wikipedia. Among the various links that Wikipedia
provides, respondents mentioned the inline, external and related links
to be the most useful. Inline links were said to be very helpful, with
one of the respondents noting that 'it helped further explain the
information on a page' and another saying that 'it helped explain
ambiguous terms'. On the other hand, related and external links were
mentioned by many of the respondents as a means to further explore new
aspects of a subject. Ease of use was on equal footing with depth of
information in terms of popularity as an attractor for Wikipedia. In
fact, for some respondents such as one secondary student, 'the fact that
information was easy to obtain' was the primary attractor for further
exploring Wikipedia. Wikipedia's interface was seen as especially easy
to use being essentially self-explanatory with a textbox allowing
keyword searches and a left-hand navigation panel providing links to the
different sections of Wikipedia such as Main Page, Content, Current
Events and Community Portal. Furthermore, each article has a table of
contents which allows the user to navigate easily between the different
sections of the article.
Repellents
Carroll's model also posits that the presence of repellents, depending
on their strength, may lead the novice user to choose not to further
explore a technology (non-appropriation). Two repellents were discovered
to be present for Wikipedia. Shallow information was identified as the
leading repellent. Although many respondents praised Wikipedia for the
its depth of information, they also encountered articles that did not
contain much information. A secondary student commented 'Sometimes it
only provides a short summary… not very detailed, so it's not quite
useful'. Adding to this, a tertiary student said that 'for some terms,
the article is too short'. Recent graduates had the most to say with one
of them declaring that 'there were certain topics that were not
well-elaborated… some explanations and relating information were too
brief' and another commenting that 'the explanation and information in
Wikipedia is very brief'. Thus, for some users, Wikipedia's coverage is
not adequate. If this were to happen repeatedly, it would be a powerful
disincentive for further use. Lengthy or wordy articles also posed
problems for some respondents. Some noted that it is 'too lengthy', 'too
wordy' and 'the information given is too wordy so it's difficult to
extract wanted information'. Users of Wikipedia would appear to want
their information fast food style.
Adoption or non-appropriation?
The majority of the respondents opted to explore Wikipedia further,
suggesting that the repellents were far out-weighed by the attractors.
Out of the fifteen respondents, only one chose not to continue
evaluating Wikipedia resorting to 'more familiar search engines' for
their information needs.
Integrating Wikipedia into everyday life <#toc>
The dominance of attractors over repellents serves to get the technology
in the hands of the user for exploration and experimentation. However,
it does not lead automatically to the technology being adopted as part
of a lifestyle. This will only take place if at least some features or
functions of the technology help fulfil deeper needs in the lives of
users. In Carroll's model, these needs are termed appropriation
criteria. Features or functions of the technology that distract from
these deeper needs or otherwise act as obstacles to their realization
through the use of technology are termed disappropriation criteria.
Our study discovered that many of the features and functions of
Wikipedia appear in neither a positive nor negative light to the
respondents, that is, they act neither as criteria for appropriation or
disappropriation of the technology. Through increased experience and use
of Wikipedia many users discovered new features and functions offered by
Wikipedia: multiple language versions and discussion forums, for
example. But such features were not seen as very useful or important and
were not used. Furthermore, the key feature of Wikipedia, the ability to
edit entries, acts for most respondents as a disappropriation criterion,
being associated with too much responsibility. One user dismissed
editing articles as 'a waste of time' but many others are more concerned
that they would introduce mistakes into entries they edited and thereby
encourage people 'to think things in Wikipedia are just myth', as one
respondent put it. The other disappropriation criterion is Wikipedia's
lack of accuracy. This is more a latent criterion in that most
respondents believed that the content they used was currently accurate
enough. However, if they discovered a trend towards articles with more
inaccuracies than they were used to, this would be cause for abandoning
Wikipedia.
Unable to make many links between the technology and their everyday
lives, Wikipedia remains, for the most part, a specialized tool used
rather infrequently by the majority of respondents (three of the
respondents revealed that they use Wikipedia primarily, if not solely,
for school projects and another five indicated that they rarely use it).
For this kind and level of use the key criteria that keeps the
respondents coming back to Wikipedia are the same as the initial
attractors: Wikipedia's ease of use and broad range of information
resources. Nevertheless, a few respondents have bucked the trend and
integrated Wikipedia more firmly into their lives. One uses it to obtain
information about a favourite television show. Every Wednesday, Thursday
and Friday this individual checks Wikipedia for which episode will be
aired, when new episodes appear and whether there are spoilers for a
particular episode. Wikipedia's toleration of popular culture entries
and its ability to be quickly updated enabled this user to fulfil the
need for leisure. Wikipedia has been incorporated into the lifestyle of
another respondent who uses it to 'do link-hopping when I am bored, I
like the links in the articles where I can click and explore'. For this
user Wikipedia is a vast treasure trove of trivia and other interesting
facts easily open for exploration whenever a few moments present
themselves. Again, it is the need for leisure that has allowed Wikipedia
to enter more deeply into the life of this user.
Long-term use of Wikipedia <#toc>
Wikipedia technology is not appropriated at any deep level into the
lives of most of the respondents although it is used instrumentally as a
tool for collecting information for school projects by most. Given this
purpose, how do users approach this task?
The first point to note is that Wikipedia is seen as a more focused
search engine. Unlike other engines which return a huge set of results,
Wikipedia returns only Wikipedia articles, a distinctively smaller set
likely to be a closer, if not an exact, match to the user's query, thus
saving time sifting through non-relevant links. One respondent, a
graduate, commented that 'It is a useful tool when you have a query in
mind and want an answer instantly'. Being able to get exact results to
almost any query prompted another respondent to describe Wikipedia as
the 'one-stop for everything'.
Our study also revealed a distinction between secondary school and
undergraduate or recent graduate use of Wikipedia. While secondary
school students used information obtained from Wikipedia directly in
their projects, the others mostly limited it to preliminary research and
background information gathering. One undergraduate commented that
'I use it for background information to obtain an idea of the topic I am
researching before I actually conduct a more in-depth research. The
links to relevant information help me form a rough opinion on the topic
I am researching'.
Her comment echoed among other tertiary students who use it 'like a
beginning step before the deep research', just to get an overview of
something non-specific or precise and as 'a good warm-up before going
into the research papers'.
Respondents apparently exercised discretion concerning the reliability
of the information they obtained from Wikipedia. Among the comments the
respondents made in this regard: 'I will selectively choose what I want
to believe. If I want to get serious information, I may use traditional
method like going to the library' and 'users of Wikipedia should assess
the accuracy and reliability of the source of the information'.
Some respondents feel that even though Wikipedia may not be the most
reliable source of information it is still valuable for the links and
references found in the articles and that they can use other sources or
Websites to validate information gathered from Wikipedia. One secondary
school student mentioned that 'I would have been to many other Websites
and have gotten the same results. This shows that Wikipedia's
information is reliable'.
Finally, the nature of Wikipedia, which allows almost anyone to modify
its contents, was also seen as a valuable part of the resource by some.
A number of respondents use Wikipedia 'to see how people think about a
certain topic' as they feel that it gives better view and more ideas of
what other people think and 'it is interesting to have more authors to
define something' since information comes from different people who
share their knowledge and views.
Conclusion <#toc> Initial encounter with Wikipedia <#toc>
The study established that young people's initial decision to try out
and evaluate Wikipedia was influenced by recommendations made by other
people, most especially their peers. In addition to this, the ubiquity
of Wikipedia on the Internet was also recognized to be a factor that
initially attracted young people to use it. In the case of peer
recommendations, external factors greatly affected a user's initial
perception and decision to try out Wikipedia, but ubiquity allowed users
to discover and assess Wikipedia for themselves. In some cases of
self-discovery, however, it was observed that affirmation or positive
reinforcement by others downplayed the hesitation of users to try out
and evaluate Wikipedia. From young people's initial use of Wikipedia,
coverage or breadth of information, depth of information and ease of use
were seen to be the main attractors, while shallow information and
lengthy or wordy articles were discovered to be repellents for adoption.
At this stage, repellents were not considered to be strong enough to
discourage the majority of young adults from further exploring and
adopting Wikipedia.
Deeper understanding of Wikipedia through use <#toc>
Further exploration of Wikipedia led the respondents to discover new
features and functions. Through this discovery process, many of the
respondents were able to uncover Wikipedia's editable nature,
transforming their simplistic initial understand ing of how Wikipedia
works to something deeper. However, for most respondents, their new
understanding of Wikipedia did not result in the appropriation of the
technology into their everyday lives. Instead, Wikipedia remained a tool
used only occasionally and usually for school work only. In fact, the
major feature of Wikipedia, the ability to edit and add entries, was
seen as requiring too much responsibility on the part of users in order
for it to be taken up. It served, therefore, more as a disappropriation
criterion than anything else.
Long-term use of Wikipedia <#toc>
Over the long-term, most respondents use Wikipedia only for school work.
Secondary school students who are not required to conduct rigorous
research use Wikipedia to gather general information which is
incorporated directly into their projects. For the other respondents
(undergraduates and recent graduates), restrictions on citing Wikipedia
imposed by instructors became an issue. Therefore, the undergraduates
and graduates used Wikipedia chiefly for preliminary research to get an
overview of a topic. One unexpected finding from the study was the view
of several respondents that Wikipedia's ability to be edited by almost
anyone was of positive benefit as it allowed them to discover a variety
of opinions on an issue. However, this view is less surprising in the
light of Livingstone's recent study of youth reaction to a United
Kingdom government site ostensibly designed to appeal to their age. She
found her respondents critical of issues presented without 'deliberate
debate' that revealed multiple facets of the problem (Livingstone 2007:
173). On the other hand, Wikipedia, with its policy of NPOV (Neutral
Point of View), actively encourages this kind of presentation.
Implications <#toc>
This study is an exploratory study and, consequently, definite
conclusions are not warranted. However, a few points are worth noting.
The first is that since Wikipedia has not been integrated deeply into
many of the lives of the respondents, it is perhaps less of a problem
than imagined for information professionals and others concerned with
its use. Furthermore, it appears that respondents do become aware of the
problems of accuracy that Wikipedia poses over time, echoing McMillan
and Morrison's finding that youth are aware of the drawbacks of their
use of technology (McMillan and Morrison 2006). This should make the
message of the need for checking alternative sources an easier one to
impart to students in information literacy or other information resource
courses.
TThe key implication, however, is the need for those wishing to design
more popular information systems to take into account the deeper needs
of users to experiment with technology in order to make it fit their
lives rather than the other way round. This is something that even
Wikipedia, it seems, has been unable to achieve.
From Rutgers University is this 3+ minutes video on Wikipedia:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XPC-bNX9O_E [VIEW THIS]
Class, there are studies that show that Wikipedia is as accurate as the Encyclopedia Britannica (Nature, December 2005)
but then other studies suggest that the Nature study is flawed (BBC News March 2006
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/4840340.stm [accessed October 21, 2009]).
Wikipedia is easy to use and readily available. Is it the only stop in finding research? Of course not. Wikipedia can and should be used
but with a critical mind as with any information resource. You were probably taught in middle school not to use encyclopedias at all
for your research and in college not to cite an encyclopedia article. Encyclopedias are good places to start for overview information.
Errors occur in print and online encyclopedias. For discussion of how those in library education view teaching Wikipedia, see the
jESSE Archives at:
http://listserv.utk.edu/cgi-bin/wa?S1=jesse
Search on the word Wikipedia and you will see how the discussion has evolved in our field. You can also do a similar search in other
library and information science electronic mailing lists such as LM Net.
To get a sense of how encyclopedias reflect the bias of the times, for those with access to a physical library (this is NOT a directive
to go anywhere, but for those who can go into a library, you might want to do this) find the 11th edition of the Encyclopaedia
Britannica (1910-1911) and/or the ninth edition (1875) and look up entries on Buffalo, NY, women, or other words of interest. You do
not have to do this and report to the class. I am offering it as an interesting activity only.
Wikipedia is fine if used correctly. Librarians know that Wikipedia is not *the* definitive source.
Should students use Wikipedia? See what Wikipedia says:
This is from Wikipedia's FAQs at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:FAQ/Schools
"Students should never use information in Wikipedia (or any other online encyclopedia) for formal purposes (such as school essays)
until they have verified and evaluated the information based on external sources. For this reason, Wikipedia, like any encyclopedia, is
a great starting place for research but not always a great ending place. "
This is a good place to start the conversation with students about how they should use Wikipedia.
Attached is the article on non-library-based virtual reference service in India and some African nations, called "Answer Box."Some of you have already
mentioned this but I am not sure the article was provided.
New York Times, Sunday, September 27, 2009
Dialing for Answers Where Web Can’t Reach
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/28/technology/internet/28village.html?_r=1
By RON NIXON
Published: September 27, 2009
KAMPALA, Uganda — The caller was frustrated. A new pest was eating away at his just-planted coffee crop, and he wanted to know what to
do. Tyssa Muhima jotted down notes as the caller spoke, and promised to call back in 10 minutes with an answer.
Skip to next paragraph
Enlarge This Image
Jon Gosier
Question Box connects operators like Phiona Joyo Tee, left, Lydia Apio and Charlene Rwemereza Abireebe with people who have questions,
especially about agriculture.
Enlarge This Image
Grameen Foundation
In Bushenyi, Uganda, Protazio Byamugisha, left, works for Question Box, a hot line for people in remote areas. ReelGeek
Rose Shuman created the service.
Each day, Ms. Muhima and two other young women at this small call center on the outskirts of Uganda’s capital city answer about 40 such
calls. They are operators for Question Box, a free, nonprofit telephone hot line that is meant to get information to people in remote areas
who lack access to computers.
The premise behind Question Box is that many barriers keep most of the developing world from taking advantage of the wealth of
knowledge available through Web search engines, said Rose Shuman, the service’s creator. That could be a drag on economic development.
“So I was thinking, why not bring the information to them in a way that’s most convenient and useful to them?” said Ms. Shuman, who is
based in Santa Monica, Calif.
Instead of searching for information themselves, people in two rural agricultural communities in Uganda can turn to 40 Question Box
workers who have cellphones.
The workers dial into the call center and ask questions on behalf of the locals, or they put the call on speakerphone so the locals can ask
for themselves. The operators then look up the requested information in a database and convey it to the workers, who pass it along to the
villagers. The workers are compensated with cellphone airtime.
The service is a joint effort of Open Mind, a nonprofit group founded by Ms. Shuman, and the Grameen Foundation, which is best known for
promoting small loans for the poor. It has received financial backing from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.
The Question Box service was first introduced in remote villages in India two years ago, and it came to Uganda in April. The Ugandan
version takes advantage of the explosive popularity of cellphones in Africa. Cellphone use has more than tripled in the last few years, and
nearly 300 million Africans now have cellphones.
Where rural villages were once cut off and isolated from urban centers, cellphones now offer a lifeline, providing access to banking, news
and business opportunities. That is a big technological advance, but for most Africans, Internet access is still too costly and slow. Question
Box was conceived as a way of overcoming both the expense and the scarcity of Internet connections. Eventually, Question Box will allow
farmers and others to use the hot line with their own cellphones or through text messages.
In June, Google introduced a similar effort in Uganda, also involving the Grameen Foundation, that allows people to find information on
topics like health and agriculture via text messaging.
Nathan Eagle, a fellow at the Santa Fe Institute in New Mexico who has done research on cellphones and development in Africa, said that
while services like these can be helpful, they must be responsive to the needs of their users.
“We can’t sit in our offices in America and decide what is useful to people and what is meaningful in their lives,” said Mr. Eagle, who also
runs a cellphone-based business in Kenya. “The services only add value if they are open-ended.”
Ms. Shuman said this was the aim of Question Box. The service, she said, is first and foremost a tool for economic development. Uganda’s
agricultural sector employs over 80 percent of the country’s work force, and receiving timely information about crop prices or the most
current planting techniques is crucial.
“In this way we are helping farmers make decisions regarding where to sell, what to plant and how to best take care for their crops,” Ms.
Shuman said. “It’s all about giving communities the ability to help themselves.”
Not all of the questions that come in are business-minded. Some are about sports — “Which is the better football team, Manchester United
or Barcelona?” — or historical trivia.
In India, villagers can use Question Box through an actual box — a metal one with a push-to-talk button. They ask a question and an
operator in a distant city will either look up the answer on the Web immediately or ask the callers to wait a few minutes before getting
back to them.
In Uganda, though, that model proved unworkable because Internet connections are so slow. So the operators at Question Box search a
locally stored database created by Appfrica Labs, a Ugandan company that hosts the call center. The database contains answers to past
questions as well as a repository of documents, government statistics and research papers.
“A lot of this information isn’t even available on the Internet,” said Jon Gosier, chief technology officer of Question Box and founder of
Appfrica Labs. “The real value in this database is that it contains a wealth of data that only pertains to the local areas.”
Most of Uganda’s rural agricultural communities are simply too remote to make it cost effective for Internet providers to offer service
there, Mr. Gosier said. “Even in the next 10 years I don’t think you’re going to see areas like this being wired. That’s why Question Box will
continue to be an important tool for getting people in these areas the information they need.”
"The Oxford English Dictionary is the accepted authority on the evolution of the English language over the last millennium. It is an
unsurpassed guide to the meaning, history, and pronunciation of over half a million words, both present and past. It traces the usage
of words through 2.5 million quotations from a wide range of international English language sources, from classic literature and
specialist periodicals to film scripts and cookery books." http://www.oed.com/about/
Here is Simon Winchester on the OED:
http://www.tvo.org/podcasts/bi/audio/BISimonWinchester052707.mp3 (accessed October 21, 2009) [WATCH]
This podcast is made available by TVOntario "Big Ideas" May 27, 2007.
For the home page TVOntario, see:
http://www.tvo.org/TVOsites/WebObjects/TvoMicrosite.woa?bigideas [WATCH]
The below is a quote from LIS student Aimee Levesque regarding the post on the Oxford English Dictionary in last semester's LIS518 Reference
course. I thought it would be of interest to this class:
[The year 2009] "marks the 300th birthday of Dr. Johnson and Houghton Library at Harvard recently had a symposium to celebrate
the occasion. You can view an online gallery of Donald and Mary Hyde's Johnson collection at
http://hcl.harvard.edu/libraries/houghton/exhibits/johnson/. The gallery includes stunning images of his early handwritten
dictionary musings.
Another neat item - recently a first edition of Johnson's Dictionary was located in the archives at SUNY@Buffalo State College. It is
amazing to have a rare first edition locally available to all who want to view it!
Finally, Ammon Shea - a vocabularian - recently completed his 20-volume reading of the OED. You can read an article on his
monumental task here: http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/books/article4878295.ece
quoted by Aimee Levesque Wednesday, October 21, 2009, LIS518
The study of dictionaries is specialized and large enough that an association of professionals who concern themselves with the study
of dictionaries exist:
http://www.dictionarysociety.com/2007/12/about-society.html
Here is its description:
"The Dictionary Society of North America was formed in 1975 to bring together people interested in dictionary making, study,
collection, and use. Our more than 400 members who live in 40 countries around the world include people working on dictionaries,
academics who engage in research and writing about dictionaries, dictionary collectors, librarians, booksellers, translators, linguists,
publishers, writers, collectors, journalists, and people with an avocational interest in dictionaries."
FOREIGN LANGUAGE DICTIONARIES
Language dictionaries and dictionaries from different countries are very important to the language and literature researcher. They
would know not to rely solely on Internet dictionaries and translation machines. One language may be spoken in many parts of the
world and the usuage would be entirely different. English provides an excellent example. Think of these British usage words: jumper,
boot, lift, mackintosh and how they differ from American usage. In British usage a jumper is a sweater, a boot, the hood of the car, a
lift is the elevator and a mackintosh is a raincoat. These are not slang words. This is not dialect. This is the proper usage of the
language English and an example of same language but from different countries.
Using Spanish as an example, usage has difficulty in this country because the differences with Puerto Rico, Cuba, Mexico, etc. and of
course Spain. Perhaps it seems simple and cost effective to stop buying dictionaries and maybe that is true for a school library
media center or a suburban branch public library, but it is certainly not true nor good practice for urban public libraries and our
great research libraries (that can be public, academic, special).
Efforts are being made in machine translation and translation search engines but the nuance of language and translation being done
by machine are still some time off.
access_foreign_languages.pdf (305.812 Kb)
The reference librarian works with multiple languages. Access to materials in languages other than English can prove a challenge because of
retrieval and language knowledge. The ALA Association
for Library Collections and Technical Services produced this report in 2007:
http://www.ala.org/ala/mgrps/divs/alcts/ianda/nonenglish/07marchrpt.pdf
The report is also attached. Levels of expertise are needed for all areas and types of librarianship. Ability to understand foreign languages is very
much needed by librarians. [DID NOT READ OR PRINT-47 PAGES]
philosophy_of_reference_service.pdf (23.596 Kb)
The class has discussed characteristics of the good reference librarian (approachable, knowledgeable, patient), the role of the library-- popular
culture, serious research and scholarship, respite and peace, a source of inspiration, characteristics of the work: accurate, complete ... what
though is the philosophy of reference? Attached is the article by Jung, K. Self-Creation and Communal-Creation: A Philosophy of Reference Service.
Library Philosophy and Practice v. 2008 (2008) p. 1-3.
This article concerns reference in the academic library. Reference librarianship in the public library is often touted as "the people's university."
[READ-printed 2/11/10]
Mr. Arieh Ress has referenced the novel Snow Crash regarding librarian Avatars-- we will address this in a future lecture. Artificial
Intelligence, Second Life, and how people are adjusting to and using these features regularly will be acknowledged. As these are being
used in business, soon that we will see this regularly in reference librarianship.
I have already posted the audio portion that describes UB's Instant Libarian http://library.buffalo.edu/help/refchat.html
But what about using bots on virtual librariansn the discussion of the future of reference, we must remember that we could also use
bots. Here is a good definition of a bot plus the name of a program (Julia) that can pass for human: from:
http://hes.iki.fi/jargon/html/B/bot.html bot n [IRC, MUD; from `robot'] An IRC or MUD user who is actually a program. On IRC,
typically the robot provides some useful service. Examples are NickServ, which tries to prevent random users from adopting nicks
already claimed by others, and MsgServ, which allows one to send asynchronous messages to be delivered when the recipient signs
on. Also common are `annoybots', such as KissServ, which perform no useful function except to send cute messages to other people.
Service bots are less common on MUDs; but some others, such as the `Julia' bot active in 1990--91, have been remarkably
impressive Turing-test experiments, able to pass as human for as long as ten or fifteen minutes of conversation. Note that bots used
to be `robots' when the term first appeared in the early 1990s, but the shortened form is now common for this type of robot on the
web.
For some bots, here are:
Pandora bots:
http://www.pandorabots.com/botmaster/en/home
ALICE:
http://alicebot.blogspot.com/
Germany has experimented with chat bots for libraries. Here is a URL to a PowerPoint slideshow on the chat bot Stella:
http://www.slideshare.net/xenzen/a-trend-from-germany-library-chatbots-in-electronic-reference-presentation
Here is another URL regarding the use of a chat bot, this one is an experiment for a public library:
http://www.slideshare.net/JasminHuegi/bridging-the-virtual-and-the-physical-space-kornelia-a-chatbot-for-public-libraries
I served on a thesis committee for a student testing the suitability for a chat bot for student advising which was something I wanted
to build into my online courses. I will address that as well as the use of Second Life and other virtual and automated ways that
librarians are delivering reference services.
Ms. Hyekyung Kim, Dr. Miguel Ruiz, and I presented a poster at the ASIST conference on the topic based on Ms. Kim's thesis. The
poster abstract and description are below:
Usability and effectiveness evaluation of a course-advising chat bot
"This research compares the usability and efficiency of a course-advising chat bot with menu driven FAQs (frequently asked
questions). Based on a survey and user interviews, a text-based FAQ system was created and compared with a chat bot that was
developed to address library and information science (LIS) graduate student course and program related questions. The students
conducted tasks with both the chat bot and FAQ systems. The usability and effectiveness of the functionality and user-interface of
both systems is assessed."
As other research bore out, users are comfortable with bots. For example, see the work of Dr. Sherry Turkle of MIT:
http://www.mit.edu/~sturkle/
and in particular her work, The Second Self
http://mitpress.mit.edu/catalog/item/default.asp?ttype=2&tid=10515
[THERE ARE FEW POSTS IN HERE THAT I MISSED SO FAR]
Search_Engines.pdf (59.713 Kb)
How does a librarian keep up with all of the new developments in search engines and also new search engines as they appear? Search Engine
Watch: http://searchenginewatch.com/ is a source for keeping current regarding Search Engine marketing and news. Following
Searchenginewatch.com can help the librarian be aware of new developments and features regarding Bing, Yahoo, Google ....
Attached is a 1999 article by Bill Mickey, published in the journal Online.
Citation:
Mickey, B. A Web search trifecta: keeping tabs on search engine features & technology [using Search Engine Showdown, Search Engine Watch and
Web Search at Miningco.com]. Online (Weston, Conn.) v. 23 no. 3 (May/June 1999) p. 79-82
[READ THIS-printed 2/11/10]