Jonathan Rochkind on the possibility of using Wikipedia as an authority file:
http://bibwild.wordpress.com/2011/05/17/using-wikipedia-as-an-authority-file/
Jonathan's idea dovetails with a question I've had: When a Wikipedia
entry matches a name or subject heading, then can we connect that
entry to library resources which share that heading, so that Wikipedia
can serve as (among all of its other functions) a discovery layer for
library resources?
Given that so many more people start their information searches in
Wikipedia than in a library catalog, such a connection could help the
library serve relatively many patrons where THEY are, rather than
serving relatively few patrons where WE are.
It looks like someone at OCLC is experimenting with a similar idea,
and what they are doing (although it is broken at the moment)
illustrates how this concept might work in practice.
First, go to the External Links section of the Wikipedia entry for
Abraham Lincoln:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abraham_Lincoln#External_links
In that section there is an "Authority Control" infobox that has a
link (currently broken) to the WorldCat Identities page for Abraham
Lincoln (the link below works):
http://www.worldcat.org/identities/lccn-n79-6779
Now, to segue from what it looks like someone at OCLC is experimenting
with to my idea:
If OCLC would add to each Identities page a prominent link that says
"Find Resources at Your Local Library", and if the local library can
be determined either by IP address or by a user-defined cookie, then,
voila! Two clicks from a Wikipedia entry to a list of local library
resources related to that entry.
This change would be a win for Wikipedia because it would add depth to
the information that Wikipedia provides to its users.
This change would be a win for local libraries because it would allow
them to serve more patrons.
This change would be a win for library patrons because this work could
be done at Wikipedia speed (start immediately, experiment, learn from
mistakes, get a lot of people involved, and steadily improve and
expand) rather than at library speed (wait two years as a working
group is created, wait two years for its report, wait several more
years as the report gets picked apart or ignored, allow no one but a
small group of librarians to do the work, and end up either with
nothing done, with a solution that satisfies librarians but not
patrons, or with a solution that is already obsolete).
What do people think? I would be particularly interested in hearing
from anyone at OCLC. (And a big thanks to Jonathan Rochkind for
letting me baffle him in his blog's comments section while I figured
out how to explain this idea clearly.)
Steve
--
Steve Casburn
ILS Coordinator
Multnomah County Library
Phone: 503.988.4549
stevencm_at_multcolib.org
<http://www.multcolib.org/>
Received on Wed May 18 2011 - 18:45:19 EDT