Wiki (#16)

I use wikipedia for what I regard as popular content rather than the traditional encyclopedia content. A patron wanted Volume 17 of Battle Royale, a graphic novel series. I couldn't find it cited anywhere but a wikipedia search took me to an article all about the series which enabled me to establish that the first series of the title only went to vol 16 and that my patron needed to turn his attention to Battle Royale 2, the second series. For me the value of wikipedia lies in the expertise of enthusiasts and I know from my own area of enthusiasm (school stoies) that professionally produced guides - such as Connoly's Modern Children's First Editions - can be far more error prone. That said, I wouldn't use wikipedia for more fact-sensitive areas such as medicine or history, at least not without cross-checking with other sources.
In the library setting I like the idea of a book review wiki. The example from Princeton Public Library wasn't bad though limiting contributions to people who had signed up for the reading program seemed an unnecessary restriction; I would have thought library membership was sufficient.
I'd love to see a local history/local stories wiki at Collingwood. You get a lot of good stories working in a public library; you also get comments too short to be called stories but which could flesh out another story and wikis facilitate that sort of activity.