We had a similar experience with Wikipedia. We added links to our digital collections for several pages related to Seattle history (eg, 1909 AYP Exposition, 1889 Great Seattle Fire) which were deleted (because we had not set up an account...they were initially added anonymously). When we let them know that we had the authoritative digital collections on these topics (and that many of our images were populating WikiCommons), the links appeared back in the Wikipedia entries. Details of the process were written up in this D-Lib article: <http://www.dlib.org/dlib/may07/lally/05lally.html>
Steve Shadle/Serials Access Librarian shadle_at_u.washington.edu
NASIG Vice-President/President-Elect
University of Washington Libraries Phone: (206) 685-3983
Seattle, WA 98195-2900 Fax: (206) 543-0854
On Fri, 20 May 2011, Peter Murray wrote:
> Tod --
>
> Thanks for this perspective. It hadn't occurred to me that Wikipedia might actively prevent something that arguably (from a librarian-biased perspective) would be a useful thing.
>
>
> Peter
>
> On May 19, 2011, at 6:28 PM, Tod Matola wrote:
>>
>> There is a problem, the wikipedia policy prevent organizations for adding
>> large volumes of links to services, I think to prevent commercial entities
>> from polluting the data with bogus links or advertisements for their
>> products. OCLC is no exception, we have tried for years.
>>
>> VIAF is using dbpedia to add links to the VIAF authorities data, so there is
>> a work already taking place at finding some of the personal names. I don't
>> think you can push stuff back to wikipedia via dbpedia.
>>
>> I think that OCLC tries to link out to libraries via things like google
>> books or openLibrary find in a library links. These links are based on
>> holdings that are told and maintained in WorldCat, as creating dead ends for
>> things that are not known to be held doesn't really seem useful. I don't
>> believe there is an effective way to crawl libraries for holdings, so it is
>> based on the members.
>>
>> I do think the concept of authority control for wikipedia is a really cool
>> idea and would be useful (like it has in libraries for decades).
>>
>> Cheers Tod Matola...
>> matolat_at_oclc.org
>>
>> On Thu, May 19, 2011 at 10:58 AM, Jonathan Rochkind <rochkind_at_jhu.edu>wrote:
>>
>>> I think it's an interesting and good idea. I suspect it could not become
>>> the only 'library (catalog) interface', but it would be a very useful
>>> service, providing more access to our resources from the wider world. And I
>>> agree that if done right, along the lines you specify, it would enhance
>>> rather than clutter wikipedia itself, and wikipedia shouldn't mind.
>>> (Wikipedia already does other kinds of linking out to third party
>>> databases).
>>>
>>> Keep in mind though that not every "name" in our name authorities (or our
>>> catalogs) is ever going to be included as an article in wikipedia -- we can
>>> include any author (anyone who's created something that was published) at
>>> all in our catalogs (and try to include all of them in our authorities),
>>> while wikipedia will include only 'notable' ones.
>>>
>>> We would need a central broker, as you mention. And OCLC is a logical
>>> entity to serve such a role, and is already experimenting in that direction.
>>> But sometimes I think OCLC is reluctant to link back out of the OCLC
>>> software universe to individual libraries -- especially libraries that have
>>> not paid for Worldcat Local or FirstSearch WorldCat or other OCLC services
>>> (let alone libraries that are not OCLC members at all), which raises some
>>> concerns about monopolization of these services.
>>>
>>> Jonathan
>>>
>>>
>>> On 5/18/2011 6:44 PM, Steve Casburn wrote:
>>>
>>>> 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
>
>
Received on Fri May 20 2011 - 12:13:40 EDT