Chapter – I Introduction

CHAPTER – I INTRODUCTION

Wikipedia matters. It is widely used and immensely influential in contemporary discourse. It is the ultimate paradigm of collective action on the Web, producing a large, successful resource of great value. According to Tonkin (2005), “Wikis allow all members to edit web pages so they are often used to promote collaborative content creation and editing”. Ketih explains ─

“Wikis (Internet provided private online spaces) are believed to be useful in supporting collaborative activity and improving student interaction. A Wiki provides an online space that allows members to collaboratively create and edit Web pages where content is emphasized over authorship. It could be used as a place for brainstorming or a place to archive shared content and link to other Web sites.”

Moreover, Desilets et al. (2006) assert, “Wiki is a collective website where a large number of participants are allowed to modify or create pages using their Web browser (p.19)”.

This introductory unit „Attitude of Information Professionals towards the Use of Wikipedia‟ consists of the background, statement of the problem, rationale of the study, objective of the study, research questions, significance of the study, delimitation of the study and operational definition of the key terms.

1.1 Background of the Study

Over the last decade, the Web has become an essential tool for researchers. Information can be found using search tools such as Google or Yahoo quickly and/or easily. The problem is often not a lack of content, but rather the large volumes of stale and questionable information. Determining the accuracy of search, a result is a challenge for any Internet user.

Moreover, Wikipedia is an Internet-based, volunteer-contributed encyclopedia that has become a popular online reference in just three years of existence. It has

thousands of international contributors and is the largest current example of an open content wiki. The goal of Wikipedia is to create an encyclopedia. Each article has an “Edit this page” button, allowing anyone, even anonymous passersby, to add or delete any content on any page. What would surely seem to create chaos has actually produced increasingly respected content, which has been evaluated and revised, by the thousands of visitors to the site over time? The project was started by Jimmy Wales resulting in only a few hundred articles. At the time, the project was called Nupedia and in March 2000 had one full-time employee, Larry Sanger. Volunteers were requested on the Internet, but there was a complex working structure, including formal positions for writers, editors, peer reviewers, copyeditors and translators. Nupedia was built on the traditional structure of peer-reviewed academic publications. After the project failed to take off, Sanger ceased being a paid staff member and the project came towards a close.

1.1.1 History of Wikipedia: On 15 January 2001, Wikipedia lunched as a sister project of Jimmy Wales and Larry Sanger‟s online encyclopedia (viz. Nupedia). Moreover, it was endowed by Wales and that was to be an expert-written, freely distributed, advertising-supported online reference work. Within a year, Wales and Editor-in-Chief Sanger decided to launch a wiki-based site to improve communication between contributors and experiment with online collaboration.

Fig. 1 A Glimpse of Wikipedia

The wiki had been invented by computer engineer Ward Cunningham in 1995 to facilitate the documentation. By 2001, the wiki was used by a number of online

projects, both private and public, as it featured a flexible structure that could scale with the size of a community. Wikipedia quickly gained an online buzz. By the end of the year, Wikipedia contained over 20,000 articles. Wikipedia continued to grow in size and community over the following two years, with various language versions created around the globe. Sanger was Wikipedia‟s only paid employee, who left the project in 2002.

After facing community resistance to the idea of selling advertising on the site, Wales decided to create the non-profit Wikimedia Foundation in 2003 to administer the development of the project. Wikipedia continued to flourish, reaching 1 million articles in 2004 and gaining traction in the new participatory Web environment. Yet, the Wiki Media Foundation prioritized maintaining a minimal organization whose role was to support the volunteer community and the Wikimedia mission to create and freely distribute educational content in the public domain. Over the next few years, a small staff was hired, including Sue Gardner (Executive Director) in 2007, and in 2008, the WMF relocated from St. Petersburg, Florida to San Francisco, California in order to take advantage of strategic relationships with other Silicon Valley firms.

Wikipedia had emerged as a global phenomenon both online and in the offline world. Editors and contributors began holding face-to-face meeting in major cities to discuss their work, and two international conferences have been held annually since 2005 to organize workshops, present academic research, and discuss a range of issues pertaining to Wikipedia.

In January 2007, Wikipedia entered for the first time the top-ten list of the most popular websites in the United States, according to Networks. With 42.9 million distinctive visitors, Wikipedia was ranked number nine. On January 18, 2012, the English Wikipedia participated in a series of coordinated protests against two proposed laws in the United States Congress. More than 162 million people viewed the blackout explanation page that temporarily replaced Wikipedia content.

Fig. 2 Number and Growth of Articles in Wikipedia

Number of articles growth in the English Wikipedia (in blue)

Source: http://www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/wiki

More broadly, Wikipedia has become part of contemporary culture. Often criticized or lampooned in the popular media for its radical openness, the project calls into question established notions about truth, objectivity, and authority. Indeed, as Wikipedia turns the page on its first decade, it stands alone as the most prominent, most recognized symbol of openness and free culture in an increasingly closed, commercialized online landscape.

1.1.2 Wikipedia as a Sources of Information As I have already discussed, Wikipedia is a freely certified, multi-lingual, online encyclopedia written by volunteers. Its content is licensed as free; meaning that anyone could use, distribute, copy and modify it. Therefore, by its open nature, it has made many wary (i.e., distrustful) about possible vandalism, most frequently individuals intentionally adding false information to an article for a variety of reasons. In addition, another criticism of it is the possibility of authors generating errors because of lack of expertise or subject knowledge. Wikipedia not only depends on volunteers from the public to contribute with articles to the open encyclopedia, but also to edit the content that might be genuinely incorrect or vandalized. Now, Wikipedia's accuracy has been mixed. Even if, all of the authors advise exercising caution, most studies have shown that its quality is not significantly worse than that available from sources that might be considered more authoritative.

Fallis (2008) pointed out “...information included in Wikipedia articles is generally accurate, reliable, and frequently overlooked, related issue”. He further writes that the most significant threat to readers posed by Wikipedia is not so much that of inaccurate information, but that of omissions, which can lead to false beliefs based on incomplete information.

What can be concluded by the afore-definitions is Wikipedia articles are objective, reliable, clearly presented, reasonably accurate and complete, they objected to the poorly written nature of some content and the inclusion in some articles of unsubstantiated information. The authors also assert that while Wikipedia's topical coverage is uneven and frequently shallow, this is what one would expect of a volunteer community-generated resource. Wikipedia, hence, is being used as a source of information in the existing era.

1.1.3 Wikipedia as a Platform for Research It is needless to say that Wikipedia is internet-based encyclopedia which is widely and/or immensely use for information gathering in the present era. Nowadays, Wikipedia, in broader sense, has become a platform for research because it is constantly evolving; its entries often include unconventional sections that might never

have been included in a traditional encyclopedia. The article entitled “Researching with Wikipedia” asserts: Wikipedia is more like a library than like a typical reference work. The mere fact that a book is in the library is no guarantee against bias or misinformation. The same can be said of Wikipedia articles. This does not make them useless; it just means that they should be approached differently than one approaches a typical reference work. The article elaborates on what is meant by “approached differently.” Articles should be examined for their documentation, and these sources should in turn be analyzed; readers should review the discussion page and the history of changes to the article to gain insight into recent edits; related topics can be explored via hyperlinks within the article; questions or concerns can be posed to Wikipedians on the talk page. Hence what we can conclude that Wikipedia is also referred as a platform for research.

1.2 Statement of the Problem

Statement of the problem specially identifies the concise and/or comprehensible description of issues that serve as the bases for the study. It includes the questions, which the researcher hopes to answer. The problem of the statement hooks the readers and establishes persuasive context of what follows. Besides, it needs to be addressed by the researcher and its primary purpose is to focus the attention of the researcher. A research worthy problem statement is the description of an active challenged faced by the researcher.

Concerning the present study, the problem is going to be explored is whether the Wikipedia is helpful for the professional development and knowledge management of its users or not, whether the information professionals have positive perception towards Wikipedia or not, how Wikipedia assists its users and what is the contemporary status of Nepali Wikipedia in the existing scenario. Wikipedia contains inaccurate and unreliable information. Creating pages and moderating a wiki takes a time commitment. Moreover, there may be the possibility of vandalism.

1.3 Rationale of the Study

We frequently hear that the term „Rationale‟ is defined as justification for doing something. Brown (1994) writes, “A rationale is the articulation of the reasons for using a particular literary work, film or teaching method”. Since wikis facilitate shared editing and information exchange, a variety of collaboration-related factors are likely to shape the work, reputation, and organizational benefits obtained from wikis.

The reason for selecting the topic is to explore how Wikipedia is supportive for the professional development and knowledge management of it users; and it has number of challenges and opportunities for ICT in context of Nepal. Although some of the researches are being carried out in the field of LIS and ICT but no work is done on the attitudes of editors and users towards the use of Wikipedia. Although Wikipedia is not widely used in under developed countries (viz. Nepal), it now is the subject of keen interest ICT field. Consequently, it will be widely used in the field of Knowledge Management as well. As I mentioned, Wikipedia is the emerging concept in the field of LIS and ICT, where different users are involved for making their networking effective.

Thus, the focal motive of the study is to reveal the present status of Nepali Wikipedia in the globe.

1.4 Objectives of the Study

The objectives of the study include general objectives and specific objectives. They are mentioned below:

1.4.1 General Objectives

The general objective of the study is to find out the attitude of Information Professionals towards the Use of Wikipedia

1.4.2 Specific Objectives

The specific objective of the study is to:

i. gauge the perceptions of users towards the use of Wikipedia,

ii. discover the barriers of using Wikipedia in context of Nepal, iii. provide technical and pedagogical recommendations to its users, iv. provide technical and pedagogical recommendations to its users, and v. suggest its users for the better result of implementing Wikipedia in ICT.

1.5 Research Questions i. Whether information retrieved from Wikipedia is reliable or not? ii. What is the present status of Wikipedia in the globe? iii. What are the general parameters to be considered in using and/or editing the Wikipedia? iv. What are the possibilities of (Nepali) Wikipedia?

1.6 Significance of the Study

No previous study was found in the Department of Library and Information Science related to Wikipedia and attitudes towards it. What I mean here is that the study based on Wikipedia has not yet been studied and/or researched in Nepal. In another vein, this study is quite new and provides a lot of information about Wikipedia in association with its users. As the study provides information about attitude of information professionals towards the use of Wikipedia, the findings of the study will be beneficial to both Wiki-editors and Wiki-users. This will be equally informative for whom, who are interested in ICT. Furthermore, this will also be noteworthy for curricular framer, policy maker, stakeholders and researchers, trainer, lecturers & students of ICT and so forth. Likewise, the study will be a great prolific to those who want to develop themselves professionally as teachers and trainers in relation to ICT.

1.7 Delimitations of the Study i. The study is limited to forty users of Wikipedia. ii. The study is limited to attitudes of users towards Wikipedia. iii. It is limited to questionnaires only as a tool to elicit the information. iv. The study is limited to the Wiki users of Kathmandu Valley only.

1.8 Operational Definition of the Key Terms i. LIS: Full form of it is Library and Information Science. ii. Wiki: Wiki/Wikipedia is an Internet-based, user and/or volunteer contributed encyclopedia that is collaboratively edited, and utilizes the wiki concept – the idea that any user on the Internet can change any page within the Website, even anonymously. iii. ICT: Information and Communication Technology is its full form. iv. FBD: It is Fish Bowl Draw. It is a random sampling technique, which is simply used in some lotteries.

REFERENCES

Adie, C. (2006). Report of the information services working group on collaborative tools. Retrieved June 16, 2014, from http://www.is.ed.ac.uk/content/1/c4/10/46/ Collabora-tive Tools And Web 2% 200.pdf

Boulos, M. M. (2006). Wikis, Blogs and Podcasts: A New Generation of Webbased Tools for Virtual Collaborative Clinical Practice and Education, BMC Medical Education, 6(41). Retrieved June 29, 2014, from http://www.biomedcentral.com/content /pdf/ 1472-6920-6-41.pdf

Desilets, A. G. (2006). Proceedings of the 2006 International Symposium on Wikis. Proceedings of the 2006 International Symposium on Wikis (pp. 19-31). ACM Press,.

Fallis, D. (2008). Towards an Epistemology of Wikipedia. Journal of the American Society for Information Science & Technology, Vol. 59, No. 10 , 1662-1674.

Goodwin-Jones, R. (2003). Blogs and wikis: Environments for on-line collaboration. Language Learning & Teaching, 7, 12-16.

Ketih, M. (2006). Wikis and student writing. Teacher Librarian,70-72. NJ: Prentic- Hall.

Pippa, N. (2001). The Digital Divide: civic Engagement, Information Poverty and the Internet Worldwide. pp. 123-126.

Wikipdia. (2008, March 3). About Us: English Wikipedia. Retrieved February 23, 2014, from Wikipedia Web Site: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia

CHAPTER - II REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE AND CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK

This chapter deals with the review of related literature, implications of the review for the study and conceptual framework.

2.1 Review of Related Literature

The past few decades have seen the emergence of numerous Internet-based social media, including email lists, Usenet, MUDs and MOOs, chat, blogs, wikis, and social networking systems. Researchers have taken advantage of the opportunities created by the large user bases these media have attracted, creating a wide variety of advanced software (e.g., visualization and analysis tools, social agents, and social navigation aids) and conducting a broad range of empirical research (e.g., on conversational patterns, social interaction, gender, and group wide patterns).

2.1.1 Researches on Wikipedia

There are many researches on Internet, which are concerned with ICT and/or Knowledge Management field. Nevertheless, very few researches are done on Wikipedia. No previous study was found in the Department of Library and Information Science related to Wikipedia and attitudes towards it. Moreover, this study is quite new and provides a lot of information about Wikipedia in association with its users. The related literature of the present study, for this reason, is as follows:

Chen (2008) conducted a survey research on the topic entitled “The effect of applying Wiki in EFL in Taiwan”. The purpose of his dissertation was to examine the effectiveness of applying wikis in terms of students‟ learning outcomes, to investigate the changes regarding students‟ attitude towards language learning, to explore the communication channels in wikis that facilitate students‟ interaction in the e-learning environment as well as students‟ experience of using wikis. The results discussed above extend our understanding of wiki application. The study provided insights of the effectiveness of implementing wikis in an EFL class. He came to an important conclusion that Wikis allowed students to fulfill their role duties, negotiate, cooperate,

manage contribution, and learn from each other. His study also revealed that wikis enables users to negotiate, collaborate with others and learn from others‟ work. A wiki provided an observational learning or modeling environment for students to learn from others‟ work.

Majchrzak, Wagner & Yates (2006) conducted a survey research on the topic of “Corporate Wiki Users: Results of a Survey”. The prime objectives of their research were to find out the answer to the questions: 1) Are Wikis sustainable? 2) Do wikis create different forms of benefits for their users? 3) What factors affect the benefits that users receive? 4) Are there different types of contributors to wikis? 5) What factors encourage different types of contributors to contribute? In this research, a survey of 168 corporate wiki users was conducted where they used some sets of questionnaires and interviews to its users. They randomly selected a prizewinner from the first 80 respondents and then another 1 from the next 80 respondents. Then, they analyzed the results qualitatively and quantitatively. Consequently, the findings indicated that corporate wikis appear to be sustainable. Users stated three main types of benefits from corporate wikis: enhanced reputation, work made easier, and helping the organization to improve its processes. These benefits were seen as more likely when the wiki was used for tasks requiring novel solutions and the information posted was from credible sources.

Priedhorsky, Chen, & Lam (2010) carried out a research on “Creating, Destroying, and Restoring Value in Wikipedia”. The main purpose of the research is to gauge how can we create, destroy and restore value in Wikipedia. In similar vein, the prime motive of the research was how Wikipedia works. Here, they have defined three key words (namely, creating value, impact of damage and types of damage). They conducted a survey research to shoot out their problems of the research. They additionally used questionnaires along with some interviews in their research. Lastly, they reached on conclusion that it is widely used and immensely influential in contemporary discourse. It is the definitive exemplar of collective action on the Web, producing a large, successful resource of great value. They, finally, make policy recommendations for Wikipedia in light of these findings.

Reinhold (2006) proposes an extension to wiki functionality. Wiki structure and navigation can be used for finding specific information, relating articles, navigating from one topic to another, or moving on to supplementary, external information. Quick navigation between articles related to the same context is possible through on explicit links within articles or by means of manual topic or full text search. The author implemented a prototype system, WikiTrails, which extends basic wiki functionality using trails, or paths, and user navigation tracking to enable teachers and students to provide trails through wiki content. Each node in a trail represents a wiki page visited by a user, and has at most one incoming edge, representing the transition from the previous page, and one outgoing edge, representing the transition to the following page. The order of nodes inside a trail corresponds with the temporal order in which the pages were originally accessed. Trails serve as a guide through wiki content. Furthermore, it provides more efficient collaborative and interdisciplinary work; offering multiple views and structures on top of the same content.

Notari (2006) asserts that collaboration is less likely to be a success without proper guidance, such as a script. A collaboration script is a description of a pedagogical scenario with several distinct phases. A good script requires the task that students have to perform, the composition of their group, the way that the task is distributed within and among groups, the mode of interaction, and the timing of the phases.

2.1.2 Content Coverage in Wikipedia

It is needless to say that Wikipedia is volunteer contributed encyclopedia. Moreover, it is a first free and internet-based encyclopedia. By being first free encyclopedia, hence, it has a wide content coverage in the existing era. Now, it is available in 287 languages of the World where official Wikipedia have been created under the auspices of the Wikimedia Foundation. In addition to the contents of it are distributed under an open license, anyone can reuse or re- distribute it at no charge. The content of Wikipedia has been published in many forms, both online and offline, outside of the Wikipedia website, CDs, DVDs, Mobile Applications, Search Engines, Semantic Web, Books and so forth. A study conducted by researchers at Carnegie Mellon University and Palo Alto Research Center gave a distribution of topics as well as growth in each field:

 Culture and the arts: 30% (210%)  Biographies and persons: 15% (97%)

 Geography and places: 14% (52%)  Society and social sciences: 12% (83%)  History and events: 11% (143%)  Natural and physical sciences: 9% (213%)  Technology and the applied sciences: 4% (−6%)  Religions and belief systems: 2% (38%)  Health: 2% (42%)  Mathematics and logic: 1% (146%)  Thought and philosophy: 1% (160%)

This can be shown in pie as below:

Fig. 3 Content Coverage in Wikipedia

Source: http://www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/wiki

2.2 Implications of the Review for the Study

In literature review, the principal focus is given to examine and evaluate what has been before on a topic and establish the relevance of this information to our own research. This review of this study may obtain from the variety of sources including books, journals, articles, reports, etc. This entire source helps to bring the clarity and pays attention the research problems. Furthermore, this improves methodology and contextualizes the findings. It is also equally important to examine and evaluate what has been said before on the topic and what has not been said yet for finding New Year for further research. To summarize, the aforementioned studies have their own value and importance in their respective fields. Here, I have selected this topic. There are very limited research studies that have been carried out in previous in the field of ICT.

In addition to the practice implications, research study has also revealed implications for future research. All the research, which is mentioned above, was conducted in the field of ICT and Knowledge Management. The afore-reviewed study is to some extent similar to the proposed study.

Chen (2008) & Notari (2006) have given many ideas regarding Wikipedia and the process of research. After reviewing all these studies and/or research, the researcher has gathered lots of knowledge as regards how he should proceed. He will carry out survey research to meet his desired objectives and he will take help of Priedhorsky, Chen & Lam (2010); Reinhold (2006). Nevertheless, he will not fully depend on them. Nevertheless, the survey research carried out by Majchzak, Wagner & Yates (2006) also gave lot of information about the corporate users of Wikipedia. The aforementioned study has analyzed the corporate wiki users non-critically, but here, the researcher will be analyzing the individual users of Wikipedia critically. Therefore, the proposed study is the first study in the department of LIS.

2.3 Conceptual Framework

Theoretical framework is the theoretical bases of the study. Kumar (2005, p.37) writes, “The theoretical study consists of the theories or issues in which study is embedded. Kumar (ibid) writes, “The conceptual framework is the base of problems”.

Becoming specific to the study, the theoretical base is the definition given by different scholars. The conceptual framework of the study can draw in the following way:

Fig.:4 Conceptual Framework of Wikipedia

Wikipedia

Nepali Users Wikipedia

 Professors  Lecturers Survey Research  Teachers

 Students

 Users

Findings and Implications

Recommendations

REFERENCES

Board, H. E. (2011, July 09). Advance Editing Workshop at Wikipedia in Higher Education Summit. Retrieved June 15, 2014, from Wikipedia: http://commons.wikimedia.org /wiki/File:Advanced_editing_workshop_at_Wikipedia_in_Higher _Education_ Summit,_2011-07-09.jpg

Chen, Y. C. (2008). The Effect of Applying Wikis in an English as a Foreign Language (EFL) Class in Taiwan. Florida.

Cooney, L. (2006). Wika as a Knowledge Management Tool. Dissertation.

Desilets, A. G. (2006). Proceedings of the 2006 International Symposium on Wikis. Proceedings of the 2006 International Symposium on Wikis (pp. 19-31). ACM Press,.

Hornby, A. S. (2005). Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary (7th edition). London: Oxford University Press.

Ketih, M. (2006). Wikis and student writing. Teacher Librarian,70-72. NJ: Prentic- Hall.

Majchrzak, A., Wagner, C., & Yates, D. (2006). Corporate Wiki Users: Result of a Survey. California.

Messer-Kruse, T. (2012, February 12). The 'Undue Weight' of Truth on Wikipedia. The Chronicle of Higher Education.

Priedhorsky, R., Chen, J., & Lam, S. (2010). Creating, Destroying, and Restoring Value in Wikipedia. Minneapolis.

Wikipdia. (2008, March 3). About Us: English Wikipedia. Retrieved February 23, 2014, from Wikipedia Web Site: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia

CHAPTER – III FOCUS OF THE STUDY

3.1 Wikipedia

Wikipedia is an Internet-based, user contributed encyclopedia that is collaboratively edited, and utilizes the wiki concept – the idea that any user on the Internet can change any page within the Website, even anonymously, and its website is the 10th most visited on the Internet, serving an average of 18,925 requests per second. The online encyclopedia Wikipedia provides an unprecedented example of large-scale, worldwide collaboration. This arrangement virtually eliminates the barrier to contribution, paving the way for intense activity at uncertain cost to article quality and value. While Wikipedia‟s overall quality is difficult to measure in comprehensive way, its contents have unquestionably deemed useful and relevant by the user community at large.

Wikipedia‟s exponential growth since its inception in January 2001 has enabled by the wiki interface, which allows any user to modify any article or to create new articles. With approximately 81,000 active editors in a month, Wikipedia is one of the most successful examples in online collaboration in the history of the Internet.

3.2 Wikipedia as a Knowledge Management Tool

Both knowledge and knowledge management are difficult to define. The former has baffled philosophers for millennia. Academics in the field of knowledge management typically define knowledge as a derivative of information, which is derived from data. Knowledge is information or data, organized in a way that is useful to the organization. Wiig (1995) practically defines the term on a sliding scale of usefulness against pathways, signals, data, information and wisdom. Further, Cooney (2006) avows, “Wikis are a knowledge management tool because they are at once both a content management system and groupware. They are a freeform tool; used in companies in a variety of ways. An example of a proposed wiki

implementation shows how, in one company, wikis can be use to increase knowledge sharing”. By all this, we can say that Wikis are a knowledge management tool because they combine two tools that are already used for knowledge management. On one hand, they are a content management system. They can be used to manage web articles as well as other documents as all information in a wiki can be searched and categorized. On the other hand, they are a form of groupware, used to enhance communication and collaboration. Knowledge management is essentially about tacit knowledge. It is aimed at making tacit knowledge explicit and then sharing that knowledge for reuse across an organization. Cooney (ibid) expresses … a sort of knowledge management lifecycle as below:

Knowledge Generation Knowledge Codification Knowledge Transfer

Wiki pages can be changed by anyone; people can work together to create web documents. The combination of a content management system and a collaboration system into one system is significant and different. Furthermore, “it is organized information”, Wiig (ibid). This new tool allows content to be worked on collaboratively and produced at the same time. Put another way, it is a tool for knowledge creation (collaboration) and a tool for sharing explicit knowledge (content management) rolled up into one.

3.3 Web 2.0

A new group of web-based information management tools has emerged based on freeform social software that enhances individual knowledge work, group communication and collaboration. They differ fundamentally from the old tools in that they are social, web-based and freeform. They are designed with only minimal structure to maximize usability and support all the less structured knowledge intensive processes. Let us focus on four applications of Web 2.0: blogs, wikis, communities of practice, and social bookmarking. Exploiting a particular wiki, there are Wikipedia‟s definitions of each are presented below:

3.4 Wikis A wiki is a type of website that allows the visitors themselves to easily add remove and otherwise edit and change some available content, sometimes without the need for registration. This ease of interaction and operation makes a wiki an effective tool for collaborative authoring. The term wiki can also refer to the collaborative software itself (wiki engine) that facilitates the operation of such a website, or to certain specific wiki sites, including the computer science site (an original wiki), WikiWikiWeb, and the online encyclopedias such as Wikipedia.

3.5 Social Bookmarking Social bookmarking is a Web based service, where shared lists of user-created Internet bookmarks are displayed. These shared lists can be organized and tagged with appropriate subject headings. Web based bookmarks that are created and tagged by librarians can be update with additional, patron-devised, simpy, and BlogMarks, is Web sites that support social bookmarking.

The predominant basis for the use of these technologies in libraries is to tap into the new generation of users‟ penchant for Web interactivity. While libraries using these technologies are not necessarily experiencing a great deal of feedback for their applications, these technologies remain a useful way to deliver library instruction and information easily to their users. Electronic updates using RSS (Really Simple Syndication or Rich Site Summary) technology are often included with these Web 2.0 technologies to provide a way to aggregate forthcoming information on a topic or from a Web site. Various spaces, such as the online bibliographic citation manager, RefWorks, and the Web site Bloglines accommodate RSS aggregation.

3.6 Wiki vs. Blog

Wikis, like blogs and forums, have become a tool for online collaboration and community building. They differ from blogs in several ways. The fundamental difference is that wikis do not contain chronological posts, and are otherwise not a tool for recording chronological data. However, functionality has been added to some wikis to allow recently added content to show up in a certain place, this is intended to

fold some blog functionality into wikis. Wikis are best suited for building a knowledge base from a variety user input. Blogs are better suited to communicate recent or chronological data from one source to many users. Forums are best suited to allow users to discuss and answer each other‟s particular questions about topics.

“There are a number of noteworthy differences between wikis and blogs. Among them, being the way they organize their information, and the number of contributors and what the contributors intend to achieve” (Doyle, 2006).  “Wikis are designed for collaborative authoring by everyone while blogs are more personal and generally written by a single author. If a wiki has only one author, the differences are not as obvious though still significant and important, as can be seen from the following points. Further, there are valid uses for single-author wikis, such as posting explicit operational instructions from a user” (Keairns, 2006).  Wikis typically organize information into topics while blogs organize information in reverse chronological order. Since they are reverse chronologically ordered, information in blogs is more of a historical record and rarely changes. On the other hand, topics in wikis are expected to evolve and often expand into something of a permanent knowledge base.  “The reverse chronological order of blogs makes it difficult to find all postings on a particular topic, and to browse through all postings on that topic. On the other hand, wikis do not show as easily when information was documented or in what order, but it does show what information is related and make it easy to browse” (Woolf, 2006).  Wikis receive feedback by allowing the public to edit topics directly, while blogs provide a mechanism for reader comments. The contents in blogs belong to the owner.  Wikis encourage knowledge sharing around topics while blogs are a sharing of spontaneous thoughts.  “Blogs are a better communication tool for disseminating information to people and for enabling feedback while keeping the original text intact. Wikis are better when information is intended to be modified and enhanced as part of a collaborative effort” (Mader, 2006c).

REFERENCES

Cooney, L. (2006). Wika as a Knowledge Management Tool.

Doyle, B. (2006). When to Wiki, When to Blog. Retrieved June 16, 2014, from http://www. econtentmag.com/Articles/ArticlePrint.aspx?ArticleID=16900

Keaims, B. (2006, May). Enterprise 2.0 and the debate about technology and control, Startup Spot. Retrieved June 16, 2014, from http://www.startupspot.com/briankeairns /2006/ 05/index.html

Mader, S. (2006c). Wiki vs. Blog. Retrieved June 16, 2014, from http://www.business blogwire.com/2006/03/stewart_mader_wiki_vs_blog.html

Wikipedia. (2008, March 3). About Us: English Wikipedia. Retrieved February 23, 2014, from Wikipedia Web Site: http://www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/blog

Woolf, B. (2006). Wiki vs. Blog. IBM developer Work. Retrieved June 26, 2014, from http://www.03.ibm.com/developerworks/wikis/display/woolf/Wiki+vs.+Blog

CHAPTER – IV METHODS AND PROCEDURES OF THE STUDY

This chapter deals with the design of the plans and procedures of the study, which is carried out by the researcher to achieve the desired objectives of the study. The research methodology can be presented in the following sub sections Design of the Study, Sources of Data, Population and Sample, Sampling Procedure, Data/Information Collection Tools, Data/Information Collection Procedure, Data Analysis and Interpretation Procedure. The methodology adopted during the study is presented below:

4.1 Design of the Study

This is a survey research. I conducted survey research to achieve the aforementioned objectives of the study. In this context, Cohen et al. (2000) put that the survey research in which a researcher gathers data at a particular point of time especially to describe the nature of existing situation or to identify most standard one against the existing situation. Likewise, Nunan (1992) argues, “Surveys are widely used for challenging data in most areas of social inquiry from politics to sociology, from educational to linguistics”. Furthermore, Cohen and Manion (1985), (as cited in Nunan, 1992) state:

“Surveys are the most commonly used descriptive method in educational research, and may vary in scope from large scale governmental investigations through to small-scale studies carried out by single researcher. The purpose of survey research is generally to obtain the snapshot of condition, attitudes and/or events at a single point of time.”

What we, from the aforementioned definition, can conclude is that survey research is a type of research, which studies large and small population by selecting sample population chosen from study population. Survey is also carried out in educational sectors to obtain a snapshot of conditions, attitude and events at a single point of time.

According to Nunan (ibid), “The main purpose of survey research is to obtain a snapshot of conditions, attitudes and/or events at a single in point”. Correspondingly,

Cohen and Manion (1985) states “Surveys are the most commonly used descriptive method in educational research and may vary in scope from large scale government investigation through scale studies carried out by a single researcher” (as cited in Nunan, 1992). A survey usually addresses the large group of population, sampling is necessary to carry out investigation. The concern here is to ensure that sample should be representatives of the study. Population of the whole sampling is doing to obtain practicability of the study. Nunan (ibid) suggests the underneath eight steps/procedures of survey research:

Step 1: Define Objectives ─ what do we want to find out?

Step 2: Identify Target Populat ion ─ what do we want to know about?

Step 3: Literature Review ─ what have others said/discovered about the issues?

Step 4: Determine Sample ─ how many subjects should we survey, and how will identify these?

Step 5: Identify Survey Instruments ─ how will the data be collected: questionnaire/ interview?

Step 6: Design Survey Procedure ─ how will the data collection actually be carried out?

Step 7: Identify Analytical Procedure ─ how will the data be assembled and/or analyzed?

Step 8: Determine Reporting Procedure ─ how will be written up and presented?

The discussion above entails that survey is one of the important research methods use in educational investigations. It is mainly carried out find out peoples‟ attitudes, opinions and specified behaviors on certain issues, phenomena, events or situations. The finding of survey is generalize-able to the whole group. For this reason, I chose survey design in my research study.

I selected survey research because it is the best way to gauge the attitude of information professionals towards the use of Wikipedia. I, furthermore, followed mixed research design (viz. qualitative and quantitative) to achieve the desired goal. In the type of research, I visited the determined field/area to find out existing data. Specifically, it is carried out in large number of population in order to find the public opinion on certain events, issues or situations. Survey research is only the valid and reliable design because informants cannot lie to the researcher. I, hence, selected survey research to conduct his research.

4.2 Sources of Data

The sources of data are the things, places and persons to meet the proposed objectives of the study. I used both primary and secondary sources of data for the study. The primary sources of information and/or data are library professionals (viz., professors, lectures, teachers, students, users, etc) of Kathmandu Valley. All the materials available in print or electronic media regarding Wikipedia and ICT are the sources of secondary data. Moreover, as secondary sources, I utilized books, articles, journals, magazines, websites, NGOs & INGOs, TV & Radio programs, etc. related to library and Wiki.

4.3 Population and Sampling Procedure

The following procedure was used to collect the primary data.

i. I purposively selected the Kathmandu Valley as the research areas of my study and collected the data from the same. ii. I randomly selected some information professionals (namely, professors, lectures, teacher, students, etc.) and used Fish Bowl Draw technique. iii. Then I built rapport with the concerned information professionals and explained them about the purpose of my study. iv. I requested them to help me by responding the questionnaire. v. After this, I distributed the questionnaires to them. vi. Finally, I collected the questionnaires within a week from the date of distribution. vii. I thanked the respondents for their active participation.

4.4 Data/Information Collection Tools

The research design of the study was survey research. There are different tools to collect the research data. I used only one tool „Questionnaire‟ to obtain the required information for my study. Only the close-ended questions were used to know the perceptions and/or attitudes of the information professionals. The rationale behind selecting questionnaire as a research tool is that the potential respondents are scattered over a wide geographical area where the tools are not feasible with limited time and resources. Therefore, questionnaire was selected as a tool for the data collection for my research.

4.5 Data/Information Collection Procedure

After expanding theoretical knowledge of the dissertation, I conducted the research tools to go to the field for data collection. Afterward, I prepared the list of sample population (i.e., Professors, Teachers, Lectures, Students, Users, etc.). I prepared questionnaires and visited the selected place. I introduced myself to the informants and told them the objectives of his study. After building rapport with the concerned authority, I randomly distributed questionnaire-forms to the concerned informants and request them to complete. In addition, some questionnaires are provided to get particular information. I followed them unless the questionnaires were returned. I collected the questionnaires, thanking the informants for their help and co-operation. Finally, I evaluated and/or analyzed the collected data from them.

4.6 Data Analysis and Interpretation Procedure

In this chapter, the collected data were analyzed both qualitatively and quantitatively. To be more specific, systematically composed data were interpreted and presented descriptively with the help of tables, illustration and diagrams.

REFERENCES

Cohen, L. et al (2000). Research Methods in Education (5th ed.). London: Routledge Falmer.

Fallis, D. (2008). Towards an Epistemology of Wikipedia. Journal of the American Society for Information Science & Technology, Vol. 59, No. 10 , 1662-1674.

Kumar, R. (2005). Research Methodology. Delhi: Pearson Education.

Majchrzak, A., Wagner, C., & Yates, D. (2006). Corporate Wiki Users: Result of a Survey. California.

Nunan, D. (1992). Research Methods in Language Learning. Cambridge CUP.

Wikipedia. (2008, January 12). Researching with Wikipedia. Retrieved May 19, 2014, from Wikipedia: The Free Encyclopedia: http://www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/wikipedia

CHAPTER – V RESULT AND DISCUSSION

This chapter consists of analysis of data and interpretation of results and summary of findings.

5.1 Analysis of Data and Interpretation of Results

In this topic, I have analyzed and interpreted the data collected from primary sources. The data was collected with the help of a questionnaire consisting of close-ended questions. The questions were constructed being based on the objectives of the study. The data was collected from 40 information professionals of Kathmandu Valley. The participants were asked to respond 28 Likert type statements. The analysis of the collected data has been carried out as accurately as possible. The analysis and interpretation has been done both statistically and descriptively.

5.1.1 General Attitude of Informational Professionals towards Wikipedia The first objective of the study was to find out the perception of the information professionals towards Wikipedia. With the help of nine close-ended questions, I tried to extract the perceptions of the information professionals towards Wikipedia. The information professionals‟ responses are presented below in Table No. 1.

Table No. 1 General Attitude of Informational Professionals towards Wikipedia

S Responses SA A U D SD N Statement No. % No. % No. % No. % No. %

1 I enjoy doing things 25 62.5 15 37.5 ------on Wikipedia. 2 Wikipedia can 28 70 12 30 ------enhance users‟ learning. 3 Wikipedia is easy to 19 47.5 18 45 3 7.5 - - - - understand.

4 I would like to learn 13 32.5 24 60 2 5 1 2.5 - - through Wikipedia. 5 Wikipedia will make 20 50 19 47.5 1 2.5 - - - - the students active learner.

* SA= Strongly Agree, A= Agree, U = Undecided, D=Disagree and SD = Strongly Disagree

Among the 40 respondents, the collected data revealed that 62.5% of the information professionals strongly agreed and 37.5% of them agreed that doing things on Wikipedia is enjoying. None of the teachers argued the statement. The data shows that all the information professionals agree that information professionals have positive effect on Wikipedia.

While analyzing the responses to statement No.2, it was found that 40% of teachers strongly agreed and 52.5% of them agreed that Wikipedia can enhance users‟ learning. Similarly, 2.5% of information professional are not sure and 5% of them did not agree the statement. This shows almost all of them agree Wikipedia can enhance users‟ learning.

Majority of information professionals (70%) strongly agreed and 30% of them agreed that Wikipedia can enhance users‟ learning whereas none of them argued against the statement. This shows that they hold positive perception towards Wikipedia. Similarly, 47% of the information professionals strongly agreed and 45% of them agreed that Wikipedia is easy to understand, whereas 7.5% of them were not sure about the statement. Majority (60%) of the information professionals agreed and 32.5% strongly agreed that I would like to learn through Wikipedia, whereas 5% of them are not sure about the statement. Likewise 2.5% of them disagreed that I would like to learn through Wikipedia. It shows that almost all of them hold positive perceptions towards Wikipedia.

The majority of the information professionals hold positive perception that Wikipedia will make the students active learner, where half of the total respondents (50%) strongly agreed and 47.5% of them agreed the statement. Similarly, 2.5% of them are not sure about the statement. The data presented in Table No. 1 reveals that information professionals have positive attitude towards Wikipedia.

5.1.2 All-Purpose Attitude of Information Professionals towards Wikipedia

The objective of the study was to find out the perception of the information professionals towards Wikipedia. With the help of five close-ended questions, I tried to extract the perceptions of the information professionals towards Wikipedia. The information professionals‟ responses are presented below in Table No. 2.

Table No. 2 All-Purpose Attitude of Information Professionals towards Wikipedia

S Responses SA A U D SD N Statement No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % 1 Wikipedia is 18 45 19 47.5 3 7.5 - - - - powerful interactive tool for information accessing. 2 Wikipedia is a 7 17.5 26 65 7 17.5 - - - - fastest and effective means of getting information 3 Use of the 16 40 21 52.5 1 2.5 2 5 - - Wikipedia increases the writing skills regarding ICT. 4 Using Wikipedia 9 22.5 29 72.5 2 5 - - - - prevents me from being creative.

Table No. 2 displays 47.5% of the information professionals agreed and 45% of them strongly agreed that Wikipedia is powerful interactive tool for information accessing. Likewise, 7.5% of them were not sure about the statement. It means majority of them agreed that Wikipedia is powerful interactive tool for information accessing.

Similarly, 65% of information professionals agreed and 17.5% of them strongly agreed Wikipedia is a fastest and effective means of getting information whereas 17.5% were not sure about the statement. It shows that most of them agreed that Wikipedia is a fastest and effective means of getting information even if some of them are not sure about the statement.

40% of information professionals strongly agreed and 52.5% of them agreed that Use of the Wikipedia increases the writing skills regarding ICT. Likewise, 2.5% of them were not sure and 5% of them were disagreed about the statement. It means the majority of them agreed that Use of the Wikipedia increases the writing skills regarding ICT. Majority of the information professionals (72.5%) agreed and 22.5% of them strongly agreed that using Wikipedia prevents me from being creative whereas 5% of them are not sure about the statement. None of them argued the statement.

5.1.3 Wikipedia Impute of Information Professionals

The third objective of the study was to find out the perception of the information professionals towards Wikipedia impute. With the help of five close-ended questions, I tried to extract the perceptions of the information professionals towards Wikipedia impute. The information professionals‟ responses are presented below in Table No. 2.

Table No. 3

Wikipedia Impute of Information Professionals

S Responses SA A U D SD N Statement No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % 1 Wikipedia improves 18 45 22 55 ------the quality of education.

2 Wikipedia is not - - 5 12.5 5 12.5 10 25 20 50 useful for learning.

3 With Wikipedia, it is 15 37.5 20 50 5 12.5 - - - - possible to do practical things.

4 I would like to 25 62.5 9 22.5 6 15 - - - - access information on Wikipedia.

5 Wikipedia simplifies 21 52.5 14 35 5 12.5 - - - - my task in the classroom/ workstation.

In Table No. 3, 45% of information professionals strongly agreed, 55% of them agreed and no one are disagreed that Wikipedia improves the quality of education. That means information professionals have affirmative thoughts towards the use of Wikipedia. Majority (50%) of information professionals strongly disagreed and 25% of them disagreed that Wikipedia is not useful for learning. Furthermore, just 12.5% of them agreed about the statement.

Similarly, 37.5% of information professionals strongly agreed, 50% of them agreed and 12.5% of them undecided With Wikipedia, it is possible to do practical things. Majority (62.5%) of information professionals strongly agreed, 22.5% of them agreed and 15% of them undecided that I would like to access information on Wikipedia. In the same vein, 52.5% of information professionals strongly agreed, 35% of them agreed, and 12.5% of them undecided that Wikipedia simplifies my task in the classroom/work station. It means information professionals have positive attitude towards the use of Wikipedia.

5.1.4 Common Attributes of Wikipedia

The then objective of the study was to find out the perception of the information professionals towards the common attributes of Wikipedia. With the help of four close-ended questions, I tried to extract the perceptions of the information professionals towards Wikipedia. The information professionals‟ responses are presented below in Table No. 4.

Table No. 4

Attribute of Wikipedia of Information Professionals

S Responses SA A U D SD N Statement No. % No. % No. % No. % No. %

1 I use Wikipedia 11 27.5 23 57.5 6 15 - - - - many ways in my life.

2 Learning from - - 5 12.5 10 25 10 25 15 37.5 Wiki-pedia is a waste of time.

3 I have seen some 14 35 16 40 6 15 4 10 - - Wiki users in ICT field.

4 I have no difficulty 13 32.5 18 45 5 12.5 4 10 - - in using Wikipedia.

Table No. 4 shows that the majority (57.5%) of information professionals and 27.5% of them strongly agreed that I use Wikipedia many ways in my life. 15% of them undecided about the aforementioned statement. Similarly, 37.5% of information professionals strongly disagreed, 25% of them disagreed, 25% of undecided and 12.5% of them agreed that Learning from Wikipedia is a waste of time. Likewise, 35% of information professionals strongly agreed, and 40% of them agreed that I have seen some Wiki users in ICT field. In Q. No. 4, 32.5% of information professionals strongly agreed and 45% of them agreed that I have no difficulty in using Wikipedia. Likewise, 12.5% of them undecided and 10% of them disagreed about the statement. It reveals that information professionals have optimistic thoughts on the use of Wikipedia.

5.1.5 Cultural Perceptions of Users Heading to Wikipedia

The main objective of the study was to find out the cultural perception of the information professionals towards Wikipedia. With the help of three close-ended questions, I tried to extract the perceptions of the information professionals towards Wikipedia. The information professionals‟ responses are presented below in Table No. 5.

Table No. 5 Cultural Perceptions of Users Heading to Wikipedia

S Responses SA A U D SD N Statement No. % No. % No. % No. % No. %

1 Use of Wikipedia - - - - 2 5 17 42.5 21 52.5 contradicts with my religion. 2 Wikipedia is used as 3 7.5 8 20 3 7.5 16 40 10 25 a fun in Nepal rather than accessioning information. 3 We need Wikipedia 13 32.5 23 57.5 4 10 - - - - that suit our culture and identity.

Table No. 5 reflects that the majority (52.5%) of information professionals strongly disagreed, 42.5% of them disagreed and 5% of them undecided that the Use of Wikipedia contradicts with my religion. It reflects that the use of Wikipedia does not contradict their religion. 7.5% of information professionals strongly agreed and 20% of them agreed that Wikipedia is used as a fun in Nepal rather than accessioning information. Likewise, 7.5% of them undecided, 40% of them disagreed and 25% of them strongly disagreed that the aforementioned statement. That means information professionals use Wikipedia as a fun in Nepal rather than retrieving information.

In Q. No. 3, majority (57.5%) of information professionals agreed and 32.5% of them strongly agreed that they need Wikipedia that suit their culture and identity. Just 10% of them undecided and no one of them disagreed about the statement. It means that they need Wikipedia, which suit their culture and identity.

5.1.6 Intellectual Quality of Information Professionals towards Wikipedia

The objective of the study was to gauge the intellectual perception of the information professionals towards Wikipedia. With the help of four close-ended questions, I tried to extract the perceptions of the information professionals towards Wikipedia. The information professionals‟ responses are presented below in Table No. 6.

Table No. 6 Intellectual Quality of Information Professionals towards Wikipedia

S Responses SA A U D SD N Statement No. % No. % No. % No. % No. %

1 I have been using 5 12.5 8 20 2 5 18 45 7 17.5 compute Wikipedia since my middle schooling education.

2 I use Wikipedia rather 29 72.5 5 12.5 2 5 4 10 - - than editing.

3 I feel Wikipedia is 30 75 7 17.5 3 7.5 - - - - necessary tool in both educational and working setting/sector. 4 I would like to learn 13 32.5 24 60 2 5 1 2.5 - - through Wikipedia.

Table No. 6 displays that 12.5% of information professionals strongly agreed and 20% of them agreed that I have been using compute Wikipedia since my middle schooling education. Similarly, 5% of them undecided, 45% of them disagreed and 17.5% of them strongly disagreed about the statement. Secondly, the majority (72.5%) of information professionals strongly agreed and 12.5% of them agreed that I use Wikipedia rather than editing. Moreover, 5% of them undecided and 10% of them disagreed about the statement.

Likewise, 75% of information professionals strongly agreed and 17.5% agreed that I feel Wikipedia is necessary tool in both educational and working setting/sector. In addition, 7.5% of them undecided and no one of them disagreed that I feel Wikipedia is necessary tool in both educational and working setting/sector. It means that Wikipedia is used and/or necessary tool in both educational and working sector. In the similar vein, the majority (60%) of information professionals agreed and 32.5% of them strongly agreed that I would like to learn through Wikipedia. Likewise, 5% of them undecided and 2.5% of them disagreed about the statement. That means they like to learn via Wikipedia and have positive attitude upon Wikipedia.

5.1.7 Availability of Wikipedia by the Information Professionals The information obtained how often the information professionals use Wikipedia at home, college, work-station, cafe and friend‟s home. The data has been presented below in Table No. 7. Table No. 7 Availability of Wikipedia by the Information Professionals S. Responses Always Frequently Occasionally Rarely Never N. 1. I use Wikipedia at 19 11 3 5 2 home. (47.5%) (27.5%) (7.5%) (12.5%) (5%) 2 3 10 9 14 4 I use Wikipedia at (7.5%) (25%) (22.5%) (35%) (10%) college. 3 6 8 12 9 5 I use Wikipedia at (15%) (20%) (30%) (22.5%) (12.5%) my work-station. 4 15 10 4 7 4 I use the Wikipedia (37.5%) (25%) (10%) 17.5%) (10%) at Cyber Cafe, or Internet house. 5 2 7 22 6 3 I use Wikipedia at (5%) (17.5%) (55%) (15%) (7.5%) my friend's home.

According to the data presented in Table No. 7, 47.5% of information professionals always use Wikipedia at home. Similarly, 27.5% of them frequently use Wikipedia at home and 7.5% of them occasionally do so. Only 12.5% of information professionals rarely use Wikipedia at home and 5% of them never do so. This data shows that majority (47.5%) of information professionals always use Wikipedia at home, although few (5%) of them never do so. Similarly, 7.5% of information professionals always use Wikipedia at college. Similarly, 25% of them frequently use Wikipedia at college and 22.5% of them occasionally do so. Moreover, 35% of information professionals rarely use Wikipedia at College and 10% of them never do so. This data shows that majority (35%) of information professionals rarely use Wikipedia at college, still few (10%) of them never do so. Likewise, 15% of information professionals always use Wikipedia at their workstation. Similarly, 20% of them frequently use Wikipedia at their

workstation and 30% of them occasionally do so. Besides, 22.5% of information professionals rarely use Wikipedia at their workstation and 12.5% of them never do so. This data shows that majority (30%) of information professionals occasionally use Wikipedia at college, nonetheless few (12.5%) of them never do so. Similarly, 37.5% of information professionals always use Wikipedia at Cyber Cafe, or Internet house. Similarly, 25% of them frequently use Wikipedia at Cyber Cafe, or Internet house, and 10% of them occasionally do so. Just 17.5% of information professionals rarely use Wikipedia at Cyber Cafe, or Internet house, and 10% of them never do so. This data shows that majority (37.5%) of information professionals always use Wikipedia at Cyber Cafe, or Internet house, nevertheless few (10%) of them never do so. Likewise, 5% of information professionals always use Wikipedia at their friend‟s home. Similarly, 17.5% of them frequently use Wikipedia at their friend‟s home, and 55% of them occasionally do so. Moreover, 15% of information professionals rarely use Wikipedia at their friend‟s home, and 7.5% of them never do so. This data shows that majority (55%) of information professionals occasionally use Wikipedia at their friend‟s home, yet few (7.5%) of them never do so.

5.2 Summary of Findings

Based on presentation, rigorous analysis and interpretation of the data, the major findings of the study are summarized and presented as follows.

1. Out of total 40 participants, all (100%) the information professionals agree that they have positive perception towards Wikipedia. Almost all (92.5%) of the information professionals agreed that Wikipedia can enhance users‟ learning. More than 90% of information professionals would like to learn things through Wikipedia. 2. Similarly, 92.5% of information professionals believe that Wikipedia is easy to understand. The majority of the information professionals trust that Wikipedia will make the students active learner, and a few (7.5%) of them are not sure about the statement. 3. Almost all (92.5%) information professionals agreed that Wikipedia is powerful interactive tool for information accessing. Furthermore, a few (7.5%) of them are not sure about the statement. Likewise, 82.5% of information professionals

believe that Wikipedia is a fastest and effective means of getting information, and just 17.5% of them are not sure about the statement. 4. The majority (92.5%) of information professionals agreed and the minority (7.5%) of them disagreed that the use of Wikipedia increases the writing skills regarding ICT. In the similar vein, almost all (95%) of information professionals trust that using Wikipedia prevents me from being creative, yet 5% of them are not sure about the statement.

5. All (100%) of information professionals agreed that Wikipedia improves the quality of education, and with Wikipedia, it is possible to do practical things. 6. The majority (62.5%) of information professionals disagreed that learning from Wikipedia is a waste of time. The 12.5% of them undecided and the same of them agreed about the statement. 7. Apart from 15% of information professionals, all of them agreed that I would like to access information on Wikipedia. Likewise, 87.5% of information professionals trust that Wikipedia simplifies my task in the classroom/workstation, and just 12.5% of them are not sure about the statement. 8. Beside 15% of information professionals, almost all (85%) of them agreed that they use Wikipedia many ways in their life. Similarly, 62.5% of information professionals disagreed that learning from Wikipedia is a waste of time, 25% of them are unsure and 12.5% of them agreed about the statement. 9. The majority (75%) of information professionals believe that they have seen some Wiki users in ICT field, 15% of them are not sure and 10% of them disagreed regarding the aforementioned statement. 77.5% of information professionals believe that they have no difficulty in using Wikipedia, and 22.5% of them yet trust that they have difficulty in using Wikipedia. 10. Almost all of the information professionals disagreed that use of Wikipedia contradicts with their religion. The majority (90%) of information professionals believe that Wikipedia suit our culture and identity, and rest (10%) of them is still unsure about the statement. 11. The 27.5% of information professionals agreed that Wikipedia is used as a fun in Nepal rather than accessioning information, 65% of them disagreed and

7.5% of them are still unsure about the aforementioned statement. 12. 32.5% of information professionals agreed, 65.5% of them disagreed and 5% of them are not sure that they have been using compute Wikipedia since my middle schooling education. 13. The majority (85%) of information professionals agreed that they use Wikipedia rather than editing, 5% of them are not sure and 10% of them disagreed about the statement. Likewise, almost all (92.5%) of information professionals agreed, 5% of them unsure and 2.5% of them disagreed that they would like to learn through Wikipedia. 14. Almost all (92.5%) of information professionals agreed and 7.5% of them are unsure that I feel Wikipedia is necessary tool in both educational and working setting/sector. 15. The majority (47.5%) of information professionals always, 27.5% of them frequently use Wikipedia at home. Just 12.5% of them rarely and 7.5% of them occasionally use Wikipedia at home and 5% of them never do so.

16. 35% of information professionals rarely, 25% of them frequently use Wikipedia at college. Just 22.5% of them occasionally and 7.5% of them always use Wikipedia at college and 10% of them never do so. 17. 30% of information professionals occasionally, 22.5% of them rarely use Wikipedia at their workstation. Just 20% of them frequently and 15% of them always use Wikipedia at workstation and 10% of them never do so. 18. In the similar vein, 37.5% of information professionals always, 25% of them frequently use Wikipedia at Cyber Café, or Internet house. Just 17.5% of them rarely and 10% of them occasionally use Wikipedia at Cyber Café, and 10% of them never do so. 19. 55% of information professionals occasionally, 17.5% of them frequently use Wikipedia at friend‟s home. Just 15% of them rarely and 5% of them always use Wikipedia at friend‟s home and 7.5% of them never do so.

CHAPTER – VI CONCLUSION, RECOMMENDATION AND IMPLICATION

This chapter presents the summary, conclusion of findings, recommendations from the close analysis of the collected data and its implications of the different levels.

6.1 Conclusion

It is a very positive sign that ICT or especially Wikipedia is ever increasing between/among the Nepalese information professionals. The study has found perception of information professionals (or, users) towards Wikipedia. Similarly, the study has found whether the information professionals have positive attitude on Wikipedia or not. Out of total 40 participants, 100% of the information professionals agree that they have positive perception towards Wikipedia. Almost all (92.5%) of the information professionals agreed that Wikipedia can enhance users‟ learning. Similarly, 92.5% of information professionals believe that Wikipedia is easy to understand. Almost all (92.5%) information professionals agreed that Wikipedia is powerful interactive tool for information accessing. 82.5% of information professionals believe that Wikipedia is a fastest and effective means of getting information. The majority (92.5%) of information professionals agreed and the minority (7.5%) of them disagreed that the use of Wikipedia increases the writing skills regarding ICT. In the similar vein, almost all (95%) of information professionals trust that using Wikipedia prevents me from being creative.

All (100%) of information professionals agreed that Wikipedia improves the quality of education, and with Wikipedia, it is possible to do practical things. The majority (62.5%) of information professionals disagreed that learning from Wikipedia is a waste of time. Apart from 15% of information professionals, all of them agreed that I would like to access information on Wikipedia. Likewise, 87.5% of information professionals trust that Wikipedia simplifies my task in the classroom/work station. Beside 15% of information professionals, almost all (85%) of them agreed that they use Wikipedia many ways in their life. Similarly, 62.5% of information professionals disagreed that learning from Wikipedia is a waste of time. The majority (75%) of information professionals believe that they have seen some Wiki users in ICT field. In addition, 77.5% of information professionals believe that they have no difficulty in

using Wikipedia.

Almost all of the information professionals disagreed that use of Wikipedia contradicts with their religion. The majority (90%) of information professionals believe that Wikipedia suit our culture and identity. The 27.5% of information professionals agreed that Wikipedia is used as a fun in Nepal rather than accessioning information. 32.5% of information professionals agreed that they have been using compute Wikipedia since my middle schooling education. The majority (85%) of information professionals agreed that they use Wikipedia rather than editing. Likewise, almost all (92.5%) of information professionals agreed that they would like to learn through Wikipedia. Almost all (92.5%) of information professionals agreed that I feel Wikipedia is necessary tool in both educational and working setting/sector.

The majority (47.5%) of information professionals always, 27.5% of them frequently use Wikipedia at home. Just 12.5% of them rarely and 7.5% of them occasionally use Wikipedia at home and 5% of them never do so. Similarly, 35% of information professionals rarely, 25% of them frequently use Wikipedia at college. Just 22.5% of them occasionally and 7.5% of them always use Wikipedia at college and 10% of them never do so. The 30% of information professionals occasionally, 22.5% of them rarely use Wikipedia at their workstation. Just 20% of them frequently and 15% of them always use Wikipedia at workstation and 10% of them never do so. 37.5% of information professionals always, 25% of them frequently use Wikipedia at Cyber Cafe, or Internet house. Just 17.5% of them rarely and 10% of them occasionally use Wikipedia at Cyber Cafe, or Internet house and 10% of them never do so. Likewise, 55% of information professionals occasionally, 17.5% of them frequently use Wikipedia at friend‟s home. Just 15% of them rarely and 5% of them always use Wikipedia at friend‟s home and 7.5% of them never do so.

6.2 Recommendation

Based on findings of the research, the following recommendations have been made.

 In response to the findings, just good awareness does not work, until and unless the information professionals are motivated and/or committed themselves towards Wikipedia. Therefore, every information professionals of Nepal should be motivated on Wikipedia.

 Information professionals have to be made aware about the importance of Wikipedia in course of their knowledge management.  Even if the involvement of the information professionals in organizations or associations is satisfactory. They should extend the awareness of involving in organizations, which will bring all of them in a single round-table.  Positive attitudes towards Wikipedia should be possessed so that the users of the same can be amplified.  The information professionals are required to update the knowledge and skill in Wikipedia.  Information centres in Nepal ought to assimilate Wikipedia in teaching and/or training. The future information professionals therefore will acquire consciousness about the potential usage of these technologies.  Networking often gets strong if the users believe in the concept of sharing and caring. Therefore, these concepts should be developed between and/or among the information professionals.  Information professionals have to be bonded themselves in single forum. They, hence, should develop the awareness of involving in different organizations and associations.  The information professionals should be persuaded by various programs such as, seminar, conference, workshop, colloquium etc.  Information professionals should frequently write journals, articles, reviews, which will develop the creative writing of them and other novice users also get opportunity of receiving ideas, methodologies, techniques, strategies regarding Wikipedia.  The relationship between the novice and expert information professionals should not be top down process but it should be reciprocal, where there should be mutual sharing of ideas, methodologies, techniques etc. relating to Wikipedia.  Information professionals should show their performances in networking activities, and they should try to conduct the meetings, workshops and seminars for the Wiki users, which will develop the sharing of the ideas and increases the development of knowledge.

6.3 Implication

The implication of the research can be exaggerated for the further study. Thousands of studies can be carried out on Wikipedia. Many emerging areas are there in this field. This study will help to find out the perception and attitude of the information professionals on Wikipedia. This study can just adjoin a brick to carry out a similar research on the basis of its findings. Therefore, I hope this study will be highly beneficial for the researchers who are interested in conducting further studies in this field and reach their destination.

Based upon the conclusions, the researcher has pinpointed the main implications of the study in three different levels i.e. policy related level and practice related level. Exaggerate

6.3.1 Policy Related Level

The major implications of the study in policy level are as follows:

 Information professionals can organize different programmes, e.g. workshops, seminars, conferences, meetings etc. and also give opportunity to publish journals, articles and reviews in relation to the ICT, or especially Wikipedia.  It will be helpful for the curriculum development centers to include the concept of ICT in the new courses.  The government of Nepal can utilize this study to formulate the policies related to ICT, or especially Wikipedia.  It can be effective to make the policies of using ICT widely for bringing up all the information professionals in a single forum.

6.3.2 Practice Related Level

The major implications of the study in practice level are as follows:

 It is beneficial to the users to create awareness about the importance of knowledge management or especially Wikipedia.  The novice users who are struggling to increase their knowledge of Wikipedia will be benefited from this study.

 This study will encourage the information professionals to involve in academic writing.  The information professionals will be motivated for using ICT, or especially Wikipedia.  This study will help the concerned authorities of users‟ networking to end the irregularities seen in the current practices of their networking.

REFERENCES

Adie, C. (2006). Report of the information services working group on collaborative tools. Retrieved June 16, 2014, from http://www.is.ed.ac.uk/content/1/c4/10/46/Collabora- tiveToolsAndWeb2%200.pdf

Board, H. E. (2011, July 09). Advance Editing Workshop at Wikipedia in Higher Education Summit. Retrieved June 15, 2014, from Wikipedia: http://commons.wikimedia.org/ wiki/File:Advanced_editing_workshop_at_Wikipedia_in_Higher _Education_ Summit,_2011-07-09.jpg

Chen, Y. C. (2008). The Effect of Applying Wikis in an English as a Foreign Language (EFL) Class in Taiwan. Florida.

Cohen, L. et al (2000). Research Methods in Education (5th edition). London: Routledge Falmer.

Cooney, L. (2006). Wika as a Knowledge Management Tool. Dissertation.

Desilets, A. G. (2006). Proceedings of the 2006 International Symposium on Wikis. Proceedings of the 2006 International Symposium on Wikis (pp. 19-31). ACM Press,.

Doyle, B. (2006). When to Wiki, When to Blog. Retrieved June 16, 2014, from http://www.econtentmag.com/Articles/ArticlePrint.aspx?ArticleID=16900

Fallis, D. (2008). Towards an Epistemology of Wikipedia. Journal of the American Society for Information Science & Technology, Vol. 59, No. 10 , 1662-1674.

Goodwin-Jones, R. (2003). Blogs and wikis: Environments for on-line collaboration. Language Learning & Teaching, 7, 12-16.

Hornby, A. S. (2005). Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary (7th edition). London: Oxford University Press.

Keaims, B. (2006, May). Enterprise 2.0 and the debate about technology and control, Startup Spot. Retrieved June 16, 2014, from http://www.startupspot.com/briankeairns/2006 /05/index.html

Ketih, M. (2006). Wikis and student writing. Teacher Librarian,70-72. NJ: Prentic- Hall.

Kumar, R. (2005). Research Methodology. Delhi: Pearson Education.

Mader, S. (2006c). Wiki vs. Blog. Retrieved June 16, 2014, from http://www.businessblogwire.com/2006/03/stewart_mader_wiki_vs_blog.html