more detail in the "we like" sections maybe?
Since this is a wiki, I'd like to see the people who are recommending vendors/products give some reasons for why they like that software or at least sign their edits when they add vendors. There is nothing to keep vendors from coming here and adding their own software and I'd just like to make sure these recommendations come from people who actually use and like the software. Jessamyn 12:29, 8 Jul 2005 (EDT)
Good idea. I'll ask people to at least sign their recommendations. -- Meredith
I was the one who added the WBC vendors; sorry about not signing my edits. I think you're right that there should be some reasoning behind why "we like" certain vendors - but there should also be some reasoning behind why "we like" IM. I didn't see that, at least not specifically labeled as such. What I do see are 3 headings for IM and only one for WBC tools (unless you count the Jybe heading), not to mention that the blog section includes mostly people who have written articles about IM, and the specific blog posts and articles all have to do with IM. While I'm in favour of IM, I don't think it's fair to present IM alone as a best practice for virtual reference. Perhaps we'd be better off changing the headings from "Software We Like" to "Web-based chat software/vendor options" and "IM software options" (making a point to differentiate between programs/networks such as AIM/MSN/Yahoo! and client options such as Gaim/Trillian/iChat). Each software option could have its own page, which would include its features, prices (if possible/relevant), a list of libraries/consortia using that software, any literature about libraries using that software, and a space for librarians to share positive and negative feedback about the software. What do you think? Rikhei 14:14, 8 July 2005 (EDT)