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, & Hoaxeshttp://lii.org/pub/subtopic/4151

Snopeshttp://www.snopes.com/

This lecture thread will begin with encyclopedias.

From Merriam-Webster dictionary: " a work that 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 ARTICLE-printed 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. segue2. pariah3. 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.Currency2. Measurement3. 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 andusage of Wikipedia among young people.

Method. Fifteen respondents aged thirteen to twenty-four were selectedfor the study. The respondents were composed of secondary and tertiarystudents, and recent tertiary level graduates. An interview schedule wasdesigned to explore user experiences at three levels: the initialencounter with Wikipedia, the time when the user felt comfortable withWikipedia, and the user's current state. Questions were open-ended andsemi-structured to allow for probing. Interviews were conducted over aspan of two weeks with each interview lasting 30-45 minutes. Follow-upquestions were asked of some of the respondents for clarification purposes.

Analysis. Interview data was used to test Wikipedia, viewed as atechnology, against the model of technological appropriation developedby Carroll et al. for their own study of mobile phone use among youngpeople.

Results. We found that although Wikipedia is initially attractive foryoung people, it generally fails to become deeply integrated(appropriated) into the everyday lives of users, instead remaining aninstrumental tool for the fulfilment of a narrow range of tasks. We alsofound that over time respondents do become aware of the problems ofaccuracy that Wikipedia poses.

Conclusions. Given that Wikipedia has not assumed the role of a keytechnology in the lives of the young people studied here, concern overits use by educators may be overstated. Also, the fact that therespondents were aware of the drawbacks to its use should make themessage of the need for checking alternative sources an easier one toimpart to students. The key conclusion, however, is the need for thosewishing to design more popular information systems to take into accountthe deeper needs of users to experiment with technology in order to makeit fit their lives rather than the other way round. This is somethingthat even Wikipedia, it seems, has been unable to achieve.

A number of studies have examined the accuracy and structure ofWikipedia (Chesney 2005; Cohen and Rozenzweig 2004; Emigh and Herring2005; Voss 2005; Viegas et al. 2007), but little has been written toexplain why people are drawn to it in the first place. This exploratorystudy aims to investigate how young people, one of the major user groupsof Wikipedia and of most concern to educators, perceive and utilize thistool from the perspective that this technology is socially constructedby 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 approximately7.9 million articles in 253 languages (Wikimedia 2007). Unliketraditional reference tools which have more stringent review processesinvolving subject experts and professional editors, Wikipedia relies onthe collaborative effort of volunteers, sourcing its content from morethan 75,000 active contributors (Wikimedia 2007; Wikipedia 2007). Theadvantage this is that anyone who wants to contribute may do so andarticles are updated quickly, in fact, having the ability to change asevents unfold. The disadvantage is that the same thing that fuelsWikipedia (the ability to be freely edited by anyone) has been thesource of issues and controversies regarding its accuracy andreliability. Despite this, Wikipedia remains popular and is among thetop ten most visited Websites in the world, only trailing giants such asYahoo.com and Google.com (Alexa 2007). An April 2007 survey in theUnited States of 2,200 people aged 18 and older found that 36% consultedWikipedia. In terms of age, 44% of 18-29 year olds use Wikipedia, whilea lower percentage of usage was registered for adults aged 30 and older,suggesting that it is especially popular with young people and making itno surprise that Wikipedia is ranked the leading Website in the survey'seducational and reference category in terms of traffic generated (Rainieand Tancer 2007).

Previous Work <#toc>

Despite its popularity, Wikipedia has attracted relatively littlescholarly attention and what attention has been given appears to focuson issues of accuracy and reliability. As far as the authors are awareno studies have been conducted on the perception of Wikipedia held byone of its most numerous user groups: young people. However, there is agrowing body of work on the use of the Internet by this user group.

In an early study, Fidel et al. (1999) examined the searching behaviourof high school students in the United States. They found that studentsgenerally enjoyed using the Web to find information for their projects.

When asked to report what features most impressed them they noted thediversity of information, its currency and the ease with which it wasaccessible. Interestingly, although they believed that they alreadypossessed sufficient Internet searching skills (mostly entering keywordsinto search boxes) they frequently had problems finding the informationthey needed to complete assignments at least within the short time framethat 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 ofAmerican youth. They found that young people faced constraints on theirsearching which they divided into three categories: time constraints,cognitive constraints and physical constraints. All of these prevent amore complete search, hence creating a situation of bounded rationality.Agosto's respondents employed strategies of reduction and terminationrules to deal with constraints, although frequently these strategiesended the search before a satisficing result was obtained (Agosto 2002).

Valenza (2006) divides the issues identified in her overview of theresearch on youth information-seeking behaviour into four categories:cognitive, affective, social and physical. The lack of appropriateskills (cognitive issues) coupled with limited equipment (physicalissues) and a lack of coaching opportunities (social) creates asituation where students feel confused and frustrated despite believingthat they possess good searching skills (affective issues).

Most studies of Internet searching behaviour or use by young peoplefocus on searching and evaluating skills. However, a few studies havetackled deeper questions. In her meta-analysis of the literature,Dresang (2005), for example, argues that despite the negativitysurrounding much of the literature about youth and the Internet, it isimportant not 'to miss the golden nuggets embedded in these studies.'(p. 182). Dresang specifically draws attention to the ease with whichchildren take to non-linear text as an example of the positive aspect oftheir information-seeking behaviour.

Watson (1998), employing a strictly qualitative approach, set out toexplore the meaning the Internet held for Grade 8 students in the UnitedStates, a far rarer research goal in the literature. A number of themeswere developed through interaction with her respondents. There is notenough space to discuss each theme here, but a few need to behighlighted as they are of relevance to the current study. The first ofthese is that students associated the Internet with certain notions oftime. They differentiated between the frequent necessity of using timeefficiently versus the pleasure of browsing for the unexpected and theystressed the need to be patient in the face of the amount of information

available online. The students also related the Internet to certainskills including the ability to develop a search strategy, but alsoabilities to skim quickly through large quantities of text and to beable to define the object of the search in the first place.

McMillan and Morrison (2006) also employed qualitative methods (in thiscase autobiographical essays) to examine the meaning of Internettechnology held by young adult college students in the United States.This interesting study sought to 'understand how the Internet isintegrated into their daily lives and their social interaction'(McMillan and Morrison 2006: 74). Among its many findings, the articleechoes some of the points made by library and information studiesscholars, namely that young people are overwhelmed by the amount ofinformation available and that some of them are frustrated in theirinability to determine good from bad in the online environment. Moreoptimistically, however, the study also found that 'young people areaware of both benefits and dangers associated with interactivetechnologies' although that did not seem to affect their actual patternsof Internet use.

In our own study, we focus not on the Internet in general, but on whatis arguably one of its key applications and, while we want to explorehow students use Wikipedia, we also want to move away from apreoccupation over the rightness or wrongness of its use, to exploreinstead the meanings and perceptions held by its young users about therole it plays in their lives. In this, we follow Sundin and Haider whohave explored the various discourses surrounding information use in thedebate over Wikipedia versus Citizendium, not with the motive to proveone side correct, but to understand the complex and often overlappingpositions taken by participants in the debate (Sundin and Haider 2007).To do so we use Carroll's technological appropriation model (Carroll etal. 2001) which in turn is grounded in the social construction oftechnology movement.

The social construction of technology <#toc>

In recent years social factors affecting technological development havebeen the subject of intense interest in the scholarly community.Bijker's Social Construction of Technology approach, for example, placessocial groups at the forefront of technological design (Bijker 1997).For those following Bijker's approach, technology is characterized by acertain interpretative flexibility in that the meaning (the problem forwhich the technology exists as a solution) assigned to the technologycan differ between particular social groups. For Bijker, these differentmeanings are what determine the trajectory of technological change asdesigners try to develop modifications that better fit the meanings

assigned by key social groups to the technology. Bijker's own researchfocused on a number of technologies, including the development of thebicycle (Bijker 1997).

Latour and Callon have also developed an influential theory oftechnological development that focuses on social groups andactor-network theory (Callon 1986; Latour 1987). In Latour's andCallon's views, technologies become successful as they develop extensiveand interlocking networks of actors (both human and non-human) aroundthemselves. These actor-networks are actively cultivated by theinventors and designers of technology who are required not only toenroll a sufficient number of actors, but also to ensure that they areable to control their behaviour. A variety of translations that work tolock actors into networks on favourable terms for the technology achievethese aims, but as Latour shows in one study of Aramis, an innovativepersonal train system developed in France, they are not alwayssuccessful (Latour 1996). Networks are inherently unstable and prone tofall apart without intensive maintenance.

Bijker, Latour and Callon are involved in projects that seek to putsocial concerns at the heart of technological development. Moving closerto our own focus in this paper on information and communicationtechnologies for young people is the work of Carroll et al. (2001) whohave developed a model of how technology is appropriated or sociallyconstructed by users, from their studies of how young people approachedone particular technology, the mobile phone (Carroll et al. 2001). ForCarroll et al., technology is initially developed with an implicit modelof how it is to be used embedded within its design. However, over aperiod of time this technology-as-designed is modified by users who takeit apart and re-constitute it according to their own interests andabilities. This process of appropriation, to use Carroll's term, hasthree possible outcomes. In the first, non-appropriation, the technologyor some of its features, are essentially ignored. However, if userschoose instead to experiment with the technology, they may engage inmodifying it to suit their own needs and interests. If this takes placeusers are said to have appropriated the technology (the second outcome).If they do not, disappropriation occurs instead as users fail to makethe technology fit into their lives in any substantial way (the thirdoutcome). In a later version of the model, Carroll et al. add anadditional filter at the start of the process of appropriation. Theyposit that certain characteristics of the technology will act asattractors and others as repellents to users considering whether toexperiment with it (Carroll et al. 2002).

In their examination of mobile phones Carroll et al. (2002) identified anumber of attractors that made young people want to experiment further

with the technology: convenience, control and fashionability, amongothers. Mobile phones seem uniquely placed to capture the attention ofyoung people and the study did not discover any repellents at work, withmost participants moving on to the point of trying to fit the technologymore deeply into their lives. At this point, however, the authorsdiscovered a number of appropriation and disappropriation criteria atwork. Social management was especially important as an appropriationcriterion. Mobile phones became a kind of glue holding together thesocial groups the young people belonged to. Leisure activities and addedsecurity were also found to be important parts of everyday life that thephones could be integrated into. However, the study founddisappropriation criteria at work as well. Cost was chief among these;other factors included health risks and the size of the phonesthemselves. Nevertheless, for most of the respondents, the decision ofwhether to adopt mobile phone technology into their everyday lives wasrelatively straightforward. Appropriation criteria easily outweigheddisappropriation criteria.

In this study we apply the concepts developed by Carroll's study ofmobile phones to a different technology, Wikipedia. Is it possible toidentify attractors, repellents and appropriation or disappropriationcriteria for this technology. If so, what is the outcome? Do youngpeople succeed in integrating Wikipedia into their everyday lives ornot? Answering these questions will shed light on young people's use andperception of Wikipedia.

Method <#toc>

Fifteen respondents aged 13 to 24 were selected for the study. Criterionsampling was employed, using educational level and educationalbackground or specialization and previous experience with Wikipedia.These criteria were set for three reasons. First, it was necessary toeliminate from the sample students whose course of study might havegiven them more insight into Wikipedia's operation, or awareness aboutthe issues that surround its use (for example, information studiesprogrammes). Secondly, we wanted to obtain approximately equal numbersof respondents for the different age groups we chose to study. Thirdly,we wanted to interview students who already had several years experiencewith Wikipedia. The respondents were composed of secondary and tertiarystudents and recent tertiary graduates. An interview schedule wasdesigned with open-ended and semi-structured questions to allow forprobing. Before each interview, the respondents were briefed on thestructure and flow of the interview. Since all of the respondents hadprior knowledge and use of Wikipedia, they were asked to recall theirexperience in using it at three levels: their initial encounter withWikipedia, the point at which they became comfortable using it and their

current use of Wikipedia. Interviews were conducted over a span of twoweeks with each interview lasting 30 to 45 minutes. Follow-up questionswere 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 throughsearch engines results. Some pointed out that Wikipedia articles wouldalmost always come out on top of the list of search results, making itquite difficult to miss. Six of the respondents specifically mentionedthat they discovered Wikipedia through the Google search engine, whileothers did so through various other search engines. On the other hand,respondents who received recommendations to use Wikipedia did so fromfriends, classmates, or siblings. Only one respondent, a secondarystudent, said that she received recommendation to use Wikipedia from herteacher. Other respondents answered that they started to use Wikipediaboth through self-discovery and through recommendations. In these casesthe recommendations acted as a spur to check what had previously beenignored during their search engine sessions.

Attractors

Carroll's model of technology appropriation posits that after theinitial encounter with a technology, further exploration by usersdepends on the presence of attractors. Coverage or breadth of topics isat the top of the list of attractors for Wikipedia. It was cited by manyof the respondents as one of the major factors that led them to chooseto explore Wikipedia further. Respondents generally perceived Wikipediaas an endless database of information on all conceivable topics. Summingup this general consensus was the comment of one respondent who claimedthat 'there is a lot of information available about almost anything youwant to find out or research on'. Similarly, a recent graduate was evenmore specific and stated that 'Wikipedia has all sorts of informationyou want to find. It provides the definition of all searches frompolitics to entertainment'. Depth of information was also a popularreason why respondents explored Wikipedia. It was observed that therespondents' reference to links generally referred to the depth ofinformation found in Wikipedia. Among the various links that Wikipediaprovides, respondents mentioned the inline, external and related linksto be the most useful. Inline links were said to be very helpful, withone of the respondents noting that 'it helped further explain theinformation on a page' and another saying that 'it helped explainambiguous terms'. On the other hand, related and external links werementioned by many of the respondents as a means to further explore newaspects of a subject. Ease of use was on equal footing with depth of

information in terms of popularity as an attractor for Wikipedia. Infact, for some respondents such as one secondary student, 'the fact thatinformation was easy to obtain' was the primary attractor for furtherexploring Wikipedia. Wikipedia's interface was seen as especially easyto use being essentially self-explanatory with a textbox allowingkeyword searches and a left-hand navigation panel providing links to thedifferent sections of Wikipedia such as Main Page, Content, CurrentEvents and Community Portal. Furthermore, each article has a table ofcontents which allows the user to navigate easily between the differentsections of the article.

Repellents

Carroll's model also posits that the presence of repellents, dependingon their strength, may lead the novice user to choose not to furtherexplore a technology (non-appropriation). Two repellents were discoveredto be present for Wikipedia. Shallow information was identified as theleading repellent. Although many respondents praised Wikipedia for theits depth of information, they also encountered articles that did notcontain much information. A secondary student commented 'Sometimes itonly provides a short summary… not very detailed, so it's not quiteuseful'. Adding to this, a tertiary student said that 'for some terms,the article is too short'. Recent graduates had the most to say with oneof them declaring that 'there were certain topics that were notwell-elaborated… some explanations and relating information were toobrief' and another commenting that 'the explanation and information inWikipedia is very brief'. Thus, for some users, Wikipedia's coverage isnot adequate. If this were to happen repeatedly, it would be a powerfuldisincentive for further use. Lengthy or wordy articles also posedproblems for some respondents. Some noted that it is 'too lengthy', 'toowordy' and 'the information given is too wordy so it's difficult toextract wanted information'. Users of Wikipedia would appear to wanttheir 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 continueevaluating Wikipedia resorting to 'more familiar search engines' fortheir information needs.

Integrating Wikipedia into everyday life <#toc>

The dominance of attractors over repellents serves to get the technologyin the hands of the user for exploration and experimentation. However,it does not lead automatically to the technology being adopted as partof a lifestyle. This will only take place if at least some features orfunctions of the technology help fulfil deeper needs in the lives ofusers. In Carroll's model, these needs are termed appropriationcriteria. Features or functions of the technology that distract fromthese deeper needs or otherwise act as obstacles to their realizationthrough the use of technology are termed disappropriation criteria.

Our study discovered that many of the features and functions ofWikipedia appear in neither a positive nor negative light to therespondents, that is, they act neither as criteria for appropriation ordisappropriation of the technology. Through increased experience and useof Wikipedia many users discovered new features and functions offered byWikipedia: multiple language versions and discussion forums, forexample. But such features were not seen as very useful or important andwere not used. Furthermore, the key feature of Wikipedia, the ability toedit entries, acts for most respondents as a disappropriation criterion,being associated with too much responsibility. One user dismissedediting articles as 'a waste of time' but many others are more concernedthat they would introduce mistakes into entries they edited and therebyencourage people 'to think things in Wikipedia are just myth', as onerespondent put it. The other disappropriation criterion is Wikipedia'slack of accuracy. This is more a latent criterion in that mostrespondents believed that the content they used was currently accurateenough. However, if they discovered a trend towards articles with moreinaccuracies than they were used to, this would be cause for abandoningWikipedia.

Unable to make many links between the technology and their everydaylives, Wikipedia remains, for the most part, a specialized tool usedrather infrequently by the majority of respondents (three of therespondents 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 therespondents coming back to Wikipedia are the same as the initialattractors: Wikipedia's ease of use and broad range of informationresources. Nevertheless, a few respondents have bucked the trend andintegrated Wikipedia more firmly into their lives. One uses it to obtaininformation about a favourite television show. Every Wednesday, Thursdayand Friday this individual checks Wikipedia for which episode will beaired, when new episodes appear and whether there are spoilers for aparticular episode. Wikipedia's toleration of popular culture entriesand its ability to be quickly updated enabled this user to fulfil theneed for leisure. Wikipedia has been incorporated into the lifestyle of

another respondent who uses it to 'do link-hopping when I am bored, Ilike the links in the articles where I can click and explore'. For thisuser Wikipedia is a vast treasure trove of trivia and other interestingfacts easily open for exploration whenever a few moments presentthemselves. Again, it is the need for leisure that has allowed Wikipediato 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 thelives of most of the respondents although it is used instrumentally as atool for collecting information for school projects by most. Given thispurpose, how do users approach this task?

The first point to note is that Wikipedia is seen as a more focusedsearch engine. Unlike other engines which return a huge set of results,Wikipedia returns only Wikipedia articles, a distinctively smaller setlikely to be a closer, if not an exact, match to the user's query, thussaving time sifting through non-relevant links. One respondent, agraduate, commented that 'It is a useful tool when you have a query inmind and want an answer instantly'. Being able to get exact results toalmost any query prompted another respondent to describe Wikipedia asthe 'one-stop for everything'.

Our study also revealed a distinction between secondary school andundergraduate or recent graduate use of Wikipedia. While secondaryschool students used information obtained from Wikipedia directly intheir projects, the others mostly limited it to preliminary research andbackground information gathering. One undergraduate commented that

'I use it for background information to obtain an idea of the topic I amresearching before I actually conduct a more in-depth research. Thelinks to relevant information help me form a rough opinion on the topicI am researching'.

Her comment echoed among other tertiary students who use it 'like abeginning step before the deep research', just to get an overview ofsomething non-specific or precise and as 'a good warm-up before goinginto the research papers'.

Respondents apparently exercised discretion concerning the reliabilityof the information they obtained from Wikipedia. Among the comments therespondents made in this regard: 'I will selectively choose what I wantto believe. If I want to get serious information, I may use traditionalmethod like going to the library' and 'users of Wikipedia should assessthe accuracy and reliability of the source of the information'.

Some respondents feel that even though Wikipedia may not be the mostreliable source of information it is still valuable for the links andreferences found in the articles and that they can use other sources orWebsites to validate information gathered from Wikipedia. One secondaryschool student mentioned that 'I would have been to many other Websitesand have gotten the same results. This shows that Wikipedia'sinformation is reliable'.

Finally, the nature of Wikipedia, which allows almost anyone to modifyits 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 acertain topic' as they feel that it gives better view and more ideas ofwhat other people think and 'it is interesting to have more authors todefine something' since information comes from different people whoshare their knowledge and views.

Conclusion <#toc> Initial encounter with Wikipedia <#toc>

The study established that young people's initial decision to try outand evaluate Wikipedia was influenced by recommendations made by otherpeople, most especially their peers. In addition to this, the ubiquityof Wikipedia on the Internet was also recognized to be a factor thatinitially attracted young people to use it. In the case of peerrecommendations, external factors greatly affected a user's initialperception and decision to try out Wikipedia, but ubiquity allowed usersto discover and assess Wikipedia for themselves. In some cases ofself-discovery, however, it was observed that affirmation or positivereinforcement by others downplayed the hesitation of users to try outand evaluate Wikipedia. From young people's initial use of Wikipedia,coverage or breadth of information, depth of information and ease of usewere seen to be the main attractors, while shallow information andlengthy or wordy articles were discovered to be repellents for adoption.At this stage, repellents were not considered to be strong enough todiscourage the majority of young adults from further exploring andadopting Wikipedia.

Deeper understanding of Wikipedia through use <#toc>

Further exploration of Wikipedia led the respondents to discover newfeatures and functions. Through this discovery process, many of therespondents were able to uncover Wikipedia's editable nature,transforming their simplistic initial understand ing of how Wikipediaworks to something deeper. However, for most respondents, their newunderstanding of Wikipedia did not result in the appropriation of thetechnology into their everyday lives. Instead, Wikipedia remained a tool

used only occasionally and usually for school work only. In fact, themajor feature of Wikipedia, the ability to edit and add entries, wasseen as requiring too much responsibility on the part of users in orderfor it to be taken up. It served, therefore, more as a disappropriationcriterion 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 rigorousresearch use Wikipedia to gather general information which isincorporated directly into their projects. For the other respondents(undergraduates and recent graduates), restrictions on citing Wikipediaimposed by instructors became an issue. Therefore, the undergraduatesand graduates used Wikipedia chiefly for preliminary research to get anoverview of a topic. One unexpected finding from the study was the viewof several respondents that Wikipedia's ability to be edited by almostanyone was of positive benefit as it allowed them to discover a varietyof opinions on an issue. However, this view is less surprising in thelight of Livingstone's recent study of youth reaction to a UnitedKingdom government site ostensibly designed to appeal to their age. Shefound her respondents critical of issues presented without 'deliberatedebate' that revealed multiple facets of the problem (Livingstone 2007:173). On the other hand, Wikipedia, with its policy of NPOV (NeutralPoint of View), actively encourages this kind of presentation.

Implications <#toc>

This study is an exploratory study and, consequently, definiteconclusions are not warranted. However, a few points are worth noting.The first is that since Wikipedia has not been integrated deeply intomany of the lives of the respondents, it is perhaps less of a problemthan imagined for information professionals and others concerned withits use. Furthermore, it appears that respondents do become aware of theproblems of accuracy that Wikipedia poses over time, echoing McMillanand Morrison's finding that youth are aware of the drawbacks of theiruse of technology (McMillan and Morrison 2006). This should make themessage of the need for checking alternative sources an easier one toimpart to students in information literacy or other information resourcecourses.

TThe key implication, however, is the need for those wishing to designmore popular information systems to take into account the deeper needsof users to experiment with technology in order to make it fit theirlives rather than the other way round. This is something that evenWikipedia, 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=jesseSearch 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 NIXONPublished: 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 DICTIONARIESLanguage 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]