Wikis, especially Wikipedia

I had a look at the Oxford web2.0 wiki, and first impression is that its a really useful resource (I must try and find another way of saying 'useful' on this blog). I had a play with Wetpaint (also in my previous role) and it seems fairly easy to use. My experience of wikis has been limited, but positive. They are a great way to work on collaborative projects, especially if you’re isolated “up the hill” like we are at HCL. They also make life much easier than having to email countless drafts for comment. What a great way to make the most out of the collective brainpower of our colleagues.

Which brings me on to Wikipedia. When I was at library school it was instilled into me that Wikipedia was pretty much the reliable-information-antichrist, and if you referenced it in an assignment, well I shudder to think what would happen.

However, since then in my professional role I have found myself using it more and more. I carry out literature searches on (to me) unfamiliar medical topics. Wikipedia will often provide me with an easy overview, allowing me to then move on to more “trusted” resources. I wouldn't rely on it to provide me with evidence based information, but it is a handy (avoided useful there) way to check things quickly.

Outside of work – I use it a lot.
Loads in fact. One of the favourite games in our house is ‘how old do you they reckon they are’ whilst watching TV. I also use it to decide whether I’ll like a film, or band , or book.
It’s ace.