The Signpost
← Back to Contents
View Latest Issue


In the media

Librarians and Wikipedians—meant to be together?

Contribute  —  
Share this
By Milowent and Pete Forsyth
Ties between libraries and Wikipedia are growing

A forum, “Library Engagement and Wikipedia,” (slides) was held at the "International Federation of Library Associations’ 2016 World Library and Information Congress" in Columbus, Ohio, as reported by American Libraries. Alex Stinson and Jake Orlowitz of the Wikimedia Foundation highlighted initiatives such as #1Lib1Ref, which encourages librarians to verify and add citations to articles.

In the same vein, The Week reported on a new $250,000 grant by the John S. and James L. Knight Foundation to link library resources to Wikipedia. The project aims to provide better library archive access to editors and to train librarians in Wikipedia editing.

These discussions and initiatives inevitably link back to discussions about Wikipedia's culture and the gender gap. Inside Higher Ed lamented Wikipedia's current culture in the context of greater internet culture, where "highly stylistic lulz-based trolling" infects attempts at reasoned discussion. As has been stated before, a gender gap cannot be bridged where a community is seen as hostile by many female editors. Highlighting a blog post by Andromeda Yelton, who apparently attended the IFLA conference noted above, the article notes that librarians are 80% female and Wikipedians are 90% male, such that many see Wikipedia having an "adversarial, argumentative bent" that is not enjoyable to all.

Yet, the above initiatives evidence Wikipedia receiving more credit as an established institution, and thus becoming the target of more projects from the traditional institutions that curate knowledge. Perhaps Wikipedia got to where it is without as much formal support (and indeed in the face of many detractors), but the old guard eventually incorporating the nouveau riche is human nature. MW

In brief



Do you want to contribute to "In the media" by writing a story or even just an "in brief" item? Edit our next edition in the Newsroom or contact the editor.
← Previous "In the media"
Next "In the media" →
S
In this issue
6 September 2016
  • News and notes
  • Special report
  • In the media
  • WikiProject report
  • Featured content
  • Traffic report
  • Technology report
  • Recent research
  • Blog
    • + Add a comment

    Discuss this story

    These comments are automatically transcluded from this article's talk page. To follow comments, add the page to your watchlist. If your comment has not appeared here, you can try purging the cache.
    • Love the title and the coverage of the libraries conversations: "Yet, the above initiatives evidence Wikipedia receiving more credit as an established institution, and thus becoming the target of more projects from the traditional institutions that curate knowledge. Perhaps Wikipedia got to where it is without as much formal support (and indeed in the face of many detractors), but the old guard eventually incorporating the nouveau riche is human nature." That wit gave User:Ocaasi and I a good laugh! Keep up the great reporting! Sadads (talk) 21:57, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • That nugget was all Milowent -- and I had the same reaction when I read it. Thanks! -Pete (talk) 22:07, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Creative Commons newsletter - is there a link available for this item? I couldn't find anything with a brief skim through https://creativecommons.org/blog/ and the "archives" link at https://creativecommons.org/about/contact/newsletter/ only lists older newsletters (2007-2010). Thanks! Quiddity (talk) 22:43, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks for the catch -- fixed in the article now, and it's on Medium. -Pete (talk) 23:07, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Can I have the link to the Search Engine Optimization story, please? I would have really wanted to read what they have to say, and omitting it is just plain silly. Surely there are worse things people could read (intentionally not linked). – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:45, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • If you enable email on your account, I'll email it to you. -Pete (talk) 23:07, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • Go ahead, Pete, but I was really hoping for an explanation for the omission as well. Does Signpost think its readers will resort to spamming links? Or are you SEO-minded enough to deny thousands of clicks to that despicable story? – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:39, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • While I can't speak for them, just a note that Wikipedia uses nofollow for external links so their search engine rank wouldn't really be influenced much. However there are still other reasons not to link to them such as driving traffic to sites opposite the goals of Wikipedia, and because you don't want to give sites like that ad revenue. Opencooper (talk) 03:37, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • Sent, Finnusertop. The story constitutes advice on how to circumvent Wikipedia's intended purpose, and its policies. The Signpost editorial board prefers not to play a role in broadly propagating that kind of information. -Pete (talk) 17:43, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
          • Peteforsyth, is this similar to Matthew Woodward's tactics? See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive267, section "SEO spam attack". Nyttend (talk) 12:48, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
            • Yes. Thanks for pointing out that prior coverage, Nyttend. -Pete (talk) 18:04, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
              • You're welcome. My response to such activity is typically (1) block the account as ((uw-spamblock)) without warning, since such people clearly aren't here for any other purpose [they're professionals, so we can't persuade them to stop], (2) blacklist the spammed URL, and (3) write a block message that includes a personalised note explaining that they need to tell their clients that the link now cannot be added to any Wikipedia page, because of their actions. At worst, the effect of the personalised message is no different from a normal block message, but there's a chance that it will hurt the spammer's reputation with the clients and reduce the chance that they'll re-hire spammers to do this. Nyttend (talk) 00:40, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • This is a well-written piece, offering a glance at the two varying perspectives of librarians and Wikipedians. Although it is true that Wikipedia has gained a significant amount of popularity in the past few years, the growing efforts to link libraries and Wikipedia will benefit both parties in the long run. On another note, would have loved to have a peek at the Search Engine Optimization article if it is, by any chance, possible. by seo uk — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.89.212.0 (talk) 16:26, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]


    The Signpost needs your help putting together the next issue.
    Category