“Essentially, the Web is shifting from an international library of interlinked pages to an information ecosystem, where data circulates like nutrients in rainforest.” (Johnson)
Web 2.0 was first coined by Tim O’Reilly at a conference in 2004. He described it by say, "Web 2.0 is the business revolution in the computer industry caused by the move to the Internet as platform, and an attempt to understand the rules for success on that new platform" (Web 2.0, 2008). This is just one of the many definitions for web 2.0. After much research, it became clear that everyone has a different definition on what web 2.0 is. Another definition states that web 2.0 is”…where digital tools allow users to create, change, and publish dynamic content of all kinds” (Stephens, 2006). For instance internet users have become more adept at creating their own web pages, trading pictures and music, and contributing information to forums. Kimberly Bolon, one of the authors of the article, Web, Library, and Teen Services 2.0 states that, “Web 2.0 is the next generation of the Internet. It is not so much defined by speed or infrastructure, but how content is created, distributed, and disseminated, and how people interact with that content and each other…” (40). While all of these definitions differ in their explanations, they do agree on one thing and that is that the internet has changed. It has changed from a one dimensional platform to a multi-dimensional landscape. Internet users do not have to sit and stare at a boring website created by nameless faceless people. To name just a few of the most famous web 2.0 sites are Myspace, Facebook, Friendster (social networking sites), Wikipedia(collaborative knowledge sharing), Flickr(photo-sharing), del.icio.us(file sharing), YouTube (video-sharing) and Blogger(Web logs). Other sites that are just as useful but not as widely known are BitTorrent (file-sharing), Furl (online filing cabinet), Hikkup (questions and answers), Ning (social networking), Pandora (play your own music), and Vcarious (travel stories). (Kennedy, Web 2.0 Alphabet: Part I, 2007) & (Kennedy, Web 2.0 Alphabet: Part II, 2007). Web 2.0 has also been called the “Two-Way Web”, the “Read/Write Web” and the “Participatory Web”, all referring back to how the web has interconnected people in ways before unseen (Bolon, 2007).
After witnessing this occurrence, librarians have begun to look at how it can or has changed libraries. This shift has become known as Library 2.0. Coined by Michael Casey in his blog, Library Crunch, he went on to write, “…those who manage and work in libraries must be willing to make significant changes in the way they think and conduct business. This shift will result in taking the traditional library of sterile spaces, static collections, and vanilla catalogs to the next level in a variety of areas” (Bolon, 2007). Michael Stephens highlighted nine Library 2.0 concepts in his article Exploring Web 2.0 and Libraries, and how we are striving to integrate these changes into the library. First openness or transparency meaning libraries are actively encouraging their patrons to participate in libraries. We want our patrons to be involved in the planning of the library. This can be done through tools such as blogs or wikis. Another is ease of use, of which libraries are actively working to make certain platforms, such as their website easier to use and navigate. For example we are introducing patrons to online renewals or holds through the libraries website. Innovation is the third concept. Libraries are trying to think outside of the box by using wikis, blogs, RSS feeds and other tools to help patrons with their wants and needs. Social Interaction and participation to create content are three concepts that libraries use that take advantage of Web 2.0. For instance, we can create blogs for our patrons to discuss programs, books, or games. Sharing is very important for librarians. Patrons can now share their favorite books through RSS feeds, or link up to author’s websites or up-to-date information on new releases. Decentralization has become quite popular. And finally trust. We trust our patrons even more to work with us and each other to make the library an amazing place to be (11-12). As Jenny West wrote, “Libraries have historically been places to receive information but with some rare exceptions, less places to contribute information. Blogs and wikis and tag clouds, all the stuff we prattle on about are good for reading or reading about but really shine through use” (Stephens, 2006). And we often do see some of these tools being used in our local libraries. Library 2.0 is breaking down barriers between librarians and patrons by creating more user friendly services and by doing this through collaboration. Never before have had patrons had so much saying in how libraries are stocked and run (Bolon, 2007).
While we have all these Web 2.0 tools lined up, how exactly can they be used in libraries? Many of these tools, while popular with younger crowds, are viewed with suspicion and annoyance by older generations. For instance instant messaging or IMing is very popular but can be treated with disdain by libraries and schools. However, Meg Atwater-Singer and Kate Sherrill, have highlighted a number of ways these internet features can be transplanted into a library setting. IMing is an exchange of text messages between two or more users. This form of communication is quick, informal, and “much more conversational and conducive to collaboration than email” (48). We can use instant messaging in Patron-to-Librarian, Librarian-to-Librarian, and Librarian to Staff communications. We can use blogs to post information on new material, library news, event announcements, policy changes, and anything else that patrons would find helpful. Patrons can respond back to these posts. Online book discussions are also another very helpful tool used for blogs. RSS, which is short for Really Simply Syndication, is a quick way to deliver news. Patrons can keep abreast of library news by subscribing to an RSS. Wikis are great for collaborating with patrons and staff on anything from “policy creation, customer service, and research.” (49-50) Podcasts can be used to broadcast lectures, instructions, and tours and of course audio books. Flickr can be used to post pictures of programs, book covers, or a photo tour of the library (Atwater-Singer, 2007).
However, not everyone is excited about Web 2.0 and all of the changes that is it bringing. Carol Tenopir wrote an article called, Web 2.0: Our Culture Downfall?, that expresses the skepticism some people have for Web and Library 2.0. For instance, she quotes Andrew Keen a former internet entrepreneur and Web 2.0 disbeliever. He says, “When advertising and public relations are disguised as news, the line between fact and fiction becomes blurred. Instead of more community knowledge, or culture, all that Web 2.0 really delivers is more dubious content from anonymous sources” (Tenopir, 2007). He believes that when anyone can contribute “unfiltered, unvetted, and unattributed information” to websites that people take as truth, that “a dangerous, dumbingdown of culture” is created (Tenopir, 2007). While this can be true in some circumstances, it is our job as librarians to teach our patrons how to distinguish between what is news and what is false.
Questions:
Do you agree or disagree with Andrew Keen? Is Web 2.0 and Library 2.0 beneficial to our libraries?
What are some other Web 2.0 technologies that can be used in libraries? What are your experiences with them? Helpful or not?
What do you think Web 3.0 will be?
Works Cited
Atwater-Singer, M. &. (2007). Social Software, Web 2.0, Library 2.0, & You: A Practical Guide For Using Technology @ Your Library. Indiana Libraries , 48-52.
Bolon, K. &. (2007). Web, Library, and Teen Services 2.0. Young Adult Library Services , 40-43.
Johnson, S. (n.d.). Web 2.0 Arrives. Retrieved from Discover: www.discover.com/issues/oct-05/departments/emerging-technology
Kennedy, S. D. (2007). Web 2.0 Alphabet: Part I. Information Today , 17 & 19.
Kennedy, S. D. (2007). Web 2.0 Alphabet: Part II. Information Today , 15 & 17.
Stephens, M. (2006). Exploring Web 2.0 and Libraries. Library Technology Reports , 8-14.
Tenopir, C. (2007). Web 2.0:Out Culural Downfall. Library Journal , 36.
Web 2.0. (2008, March 2). Retrieved February 27, 2008, from Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_2
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
13 comments:
I know one former president of ALA and a librarian who would agree with Andrew Keen and who is so against libraries pursuing web usage in their profession that he has been outwardly attacked by “tech-librarians” everywhere. His name is Michael Gorman. Read this short article, http://librarianinblack.typepad.com/librarianinblack/2005/11/michael_gorman_.html
Is he so suspicious of Google as it “delivers a pile of rubbish to you at 0.97 nanoseconds” because he refuses to learn how to navigate it effectively and in collaboration with relevant, quality research methods ? He goes on to say that, “A blog is a species of interactive electronic diary by means of which the unpublishable, untrammeled by editors or the rules of grammar, can communicate their thoughts via the web. (Though it sounds like something you would find stuck in a drain, the ugly neologism blog is a contraction of "web log.") Until recently, I had not spent much time thinking about blogs or Blog People.” - http://www.libraryjournal.com/article/CA502009.html
Maybe it’s as simple as older generation librarians are weary of new technology just like my dad who is 74 refuses to hook up his DVD player that I bought him two years ago. He will not let me attempt this feat either since he has lost the owner’s manual and is vigilant in his theory that I will blow up his TV if I plug something into the wrong place.
I think that all this concern over “unfiltered, unvetted, and unattributed information” just validates the importance of librarians and their role in distinguishing quality information from the “rubbish.” Now more than ever, libraries and their patrons need an open exchange of dialogue as they sort through these tools of research. That’s where we come in!
Sources: LibrarianInBlack.net
Libraryjournal.com
Portraying Web 2.0 as a vast “unvetted” and “unfiltered” wasteland as Keen does is, in many cases, inaccurate. Web 2.0 sites are often successful precisely because of someone’s careful supervision —maybe there’s a role here for librarians?
Wickipedia “which doesn't even require contributors to register—somehow holds its own against the Encyclopedia Britannica in accuracy… and has many times more entries.” (Wilson, 2008) But “ 1 percent of Wikipedia users are responsible for about half of the site's edits.” (2008). And this core group of Wickipedia devotees also supervise the site with electronic tools “that help standardize format, prevent vandalism, and root out folks who flood the site with obscenities.” (Wilson, 2008) And “Digg—a site meant to ‘collectively determine the value of content’—is largely run by 100 people.” (Wilson, 2008). Wilson of Slate.com concludes “[t]his is not the wisdom of the crowd. This is the wisdom of the chaperones.” (Wilson).
In contrast to Keen, Wilson’s concern is not that the hoi polloi is running amuck, but that these sites give too much editorial power to a small group of “elite users.” (2008) Wilson points to sites like Helium and Slashdot as possible models for resolving both his own, and, too a degree, Keen’s concerns. (2008) According to Wilson, no one can rate stories or make content decisions on Helium unless and until one submits a story of one’s own. (2008) This requirement works to filter out those who simply want to clog up serious discussions with garbage, without making any real effort to participate on a serious level. (Wilson, 2008) But anyone willing to write can participate. (Wilson, 2008)
Still, I believe that we always have and always will contend with the publication of “unvetted” and “unattributed” material. And I don’t believe that Web 2.0 is fundamentally different from earlier forms of communication in this respect. And to me this is not a bad thing.
When Andrew Keen argues against the “cult of the amateur” and modes of communication that allow “anyone [to] contribute ‘unfiltered, unvetted, and unattributed information’ to websites [because] people take [it] as truth” (Tenopir, 2007) (emphasis added) he forgets that anonymous publication by “anyone” has a long and venerable history, particularly in this country.
Between 1750 and 1776, revolutionary types published over four hundred pamphlets arguing against the policies of the Crown, and many were far from the truth. (Anderson, 2005) "By the time the War of Independence ended in 1783, the number of pamphlets had grown to [around] fifteen hundred.” (Anderson, 2005) And these inexpensive and easy to generate pamphlets (easier to broduce than a book, although admittedly not as easy to produce as a blog) were frequently “published under pseudonyms.” (Anderson, 2005) "It was in this form - as [anonymously written] pamphlets - that much of the most important and characteristic writing of the American Revolution appeared.” (Anderson quoting Bailyn, 2005) And many of these pamphlets-- if not most, or all--were authored by amateur authors, not Keen’s “traditional journalists, authors, and other sources of quality information.” (Tenopir, 2007)
The Federalist Papers, which were all published under the name Publius, despite having been written by men such as Alexander Hamilton and James Madison, are a rather well known example of “unfiltered, unvetted, and unattributed information” (Tenopir, 2007). (Ellis, 2000, p. 77.) And, “Publius’s opponents, the Anti Federalists, also tended to publish under pseudonyms.” McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Comm’n, 514 U.S. 334,__, n6 (1995). And Thomas Paine published his well known pamphlet Common Sense anonymously on January 10, 1776. (Primary Source). I suppose, at the time, some felt these political documents were dangerous or lowbrow or degenerate. But many of these writings have withstood the test of time.
…And some of the fifteen hundred pamphlets published at the time have not.
Like any communication or publication medium, Web 2.0 is a tool. It is simply the latest method by which people can express their opinions and enter national discussions on issues of importance, or perceived importance. Some blogs are anonymous and some are not. Some are affiliated with organizations that lend credence to the writer and some are not—but then again neither Thomas Paine nor the authors of the Federalist Papers began as authoritative sources. Thomas Paine was a corset maker, privateer, and failed business man, to name a few of his endeavors. (Wickipedia). And Alexander Hamilton was the “illegitimate son of a down-on-her-luck beauty…and a hard-drinking Scottish merchant with a flair for bankruptcy. “ (Ellis, 2000, p. 22) Others, like Madison, were professionals, but not journalists or scholars or academics.
Some blogs or Wickis, or whatever’s next will be well-thought-out and well-written, and some might eventually be elevated to the status of seminal documents…and a lot of trash will be deleted and well-forgotten over time. It’s true that with Web 2.0, the sheer volume of information makes the sorting process more challenging than in the past. But I agree with Robin, this does not make Web 2.0 a bad thing; it just means that people must learn to become critical consumers of information—and for librarians in need of work, this may be very good indeed.
Cites:
Anderson, K. (2005, March 22) A climate of fear. Magic City Morning Star. Retrieved on March 4, 2008, from http://www.magic-city-news.com/Editor_s_Desk_34/A_Climate_of_Fear_34683468.shtml
Ellis, J. (2000) Founding brothers: the revolutionary generation. New York: Vintage Books.
Primary Source of the Month (2008) Colonial Williamsburg Foundation. Retrieved on March 5, 2008, from http://www.history.org/history/teaching/enewsletter/volume6/dec07/primsource.cfm.
Tenopir, C. (2007, December 15). OnLine data bases—Web 2.0: Our Cultural Downfall? Library Journal. Retrieved on March 5, 2008, from http://www.libraryjournal.com/article/CA6510681.html?q=cultural+downfall.
Thomas Paine (2008, March 5) Wikipedia. Retrieved on March 5, 2008, from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Paine.
Wilson, C. (2008, February 22) The wisdom of the chaperones: Digg, Wikipedia, and the myth of Web 2.0 democracy. Slate.Com. Retrieved on March 5, 2008, from http://www.slate.com/id/2184487.
Considering how important and necessary the Internet has become in the last decade, it would be a shame for library professionals to neglect to realize the importance of integration.
To quote Stephen Abram, "We feel we need to protect the book—because the book is threatened—which, of course, it isn’t." As a learning-to-be librarian, I entered the program because I love books. I love reading. I love being surrounded by information in printed form. But if librarians are standing around in libraries surrounded by the printed page, simply waiting for enthusiastic knowledge-seekers to energetically walk through the door, grasping for the any books they can get their hands on, there will be a problem.
Abrams suggests that libraries need to admit there is a problem, and attempt to complete a sort of 12-step program. Books will always be an incredibly valuable resource for library patrons. But in order to bring patrons in and assist them in the best ways possible, librarians must figure out what their patrons' needs are. In the technological age we live in, librarians are faced with the perfect opportunity to do what they do best: assist people in finding credible, relevant information. Google isn't as accurate as most librarians. But most people don't head straight to the library when they need information.
source:
http://www.techsource.ala.org/blog/2005/11/its-good-for-libraries-for-him-to-be-the-king-cpl-scholars-part-1.html
Andrew Keen sees the worst of Web 2.0 but that side of the story is what keeps quality up in the application of 2.0 in libraries. We do need checks and balances. "The dumbing down of culture" is real in regard to the application of some of these technologies but it takes time for people to adapt to new ideas and opportunities and to make them an intuitive part of daily living. 2.0 is new and many libraries are just beginning to experiment with these new technologies. Determining how to draw people in with 2.0 (particularly young adults because at a certain age most older patrons will just not adapt) will take alot of tweeking and the integration of the new generation of MLIS students into the system.
Are the schools pushing libraries on the whole and introducing the students to the possibilities - and are the libraries really considering what will spark and maintain the interest of young adults? When I was in my library last week I glanced over to the young adult section. There were four computers, two labeled " teen" and two labeled "youth". Now what teenager wants to sit next to a ten year old on the computer? Hopeful thinking but out of touch.
According to YALSA, only 61% of households have computers, only 54.7% have internet access. With these numbers in mind and a chance to close the digital divide while they are at it, libraries have a great opportunity to draw in teens,(particuarly in the dangerous hours of 3-6) who will in a few short years will be parents bringing in their own children. But only if we capture their respect now! YALSA questions how teenagers can sharpen their library skills if they do not have open acces to quality information much less have access to technology and its constrctive use. Lets give 2.0 some time time and be creative, the future of our libraries really depend on it.
Source:
Meeting the Challenge:Library Services to Teens. www.ala.org/Yalsa/Talking Points_Advocacy 0407. Accessed March 6, 2008.
Libraries have a responsibility to adapt the best of new technologies to be of use in the pursuit of information. Michael Casey has a good perspective on the integration of new tools to enhance library usefullness. As referenced in the origional post, Library 2.0 provides greater transparency, ease of use, and allows more innovation than libraries may have had in the past.
Technology is a passive tool, though. Of course the fears of Andrew Keen are founded. Fidelity of information is always a risk in the marketplace of ideas. However, as always, a good librarian is the rock that anchors an information institution. It is not the job of the librarian to implement the latest technology for technology's sake. That would be frustratingly tiresome considering the pace of technologial turnover. The librarian must vett web 2.0 and indeed refine it for use use as library 2.0. The refrain of librarian 2.0 should be similar to what Stephan Abram says "Connect people and technology and information in context." The whole conversation about technology as library application is dependant upon librarian 2.0; still the person with the job of facilitating the exhange of information.
Source: Out Front With Stephen Abram, p. 81.
I found an article that goes some way towards debunking Tenopir's article on ow web 2.0 is posing a serious threat to scholarly endeavors. It's about how academics are using web 2.0 tools for their own scholarly ends. Some examples include social bookmarking; sharing citations to academic papers that they are using with other scholars, as well as storing those papers for future use. Here's the cite:
Padilla, C. Research 2.0: Useful Web Applications for Researchers. Online (Weston, Conn.) v. 31 no. 6 (November/December 2007) p. 30-5
Roby- I agree with you that this Web 2.0 can be difficult for the older generation. Some of them just don't trust or understand it. It is up to us to recognize this and be able to offer tech and print materials. For instance, at my library, my supervisor is bound and determind to make sure all meeting room reservations and program registrations are done online. I don't think this will work for older people who don't own a computer or just don't know how to use it. If they want to sign up for computers 101 then obvious they can't register online right?
Holly- I like you comment about needing to get people out of their comfort zone. It can be a big challenge to do that but I also believe that is part of our job as librarians to intruduce and expsose this stuff to people.
K.Gordon- You make a good point in that all tech has good and bad points. Even print material has good and bad information (just think about all those tabloid mags) As Anne said we just need a checks and balance system to weed out the bad from the good. We need to able to do this for our patons, especially younger kids who are just learning how to do research. Thanks for mentioning those sites, I have never heard of them but I would defintely check them out.
Going off what Nicole said about protecting the book, reminded me of a class I had where the professor required us to always use at least 1 book in our research papers. We could have as many references as we wanted but just as long as we use one book. Thinking back, it is important for us librarians to continue to promote the book. Alot of valuable information can come out of books whereas alot of websites you have to take with a grain of salt. Like you said, integration is important; while helping a student with research, its important to show them books along with websites, online journals, etc.
Joseph- I really liked your comment, "...good librarian is the rock that anchors an information institution." Librarians really are the go to person for information. I don't know how many calls I've taken where people just want to know how to spell a word, or even about a law or just some kind of information. Alot of those calls are from older patrons b/c well lets face it, our generation would just power up our laptops, click on google and type away.
Although I slightly disgree with your comment about its not a librarians job to implement the latest technology. I think it kind of is our job to at least knowledge it, and if not have it, then have knowledge on it for someone who does want.
Robin, I like how you started: “Essentially, the Web is shifting from an international library of interlinked pages to an information ecosystem, where data circulates like nutrients in rainforest.” (Johnson)
I would like to mention about a big upcoming project that was proposed by Library of Congress and was greatly appreciated by UNESCO (Librarian of Congress James Billington who first proposed the idea for a World Digital Library in 2005).
The World Digital Library is to be developed in cooperation with UNESCO and libraries and cultural institutions from around the world. The project will focus on digitizing unique and rare materials and make it available freely on the Internet.
“Making all this available free of charge on the Internet will give teachers and librarians a new resource to encourage young people to reads and study foreign languages, and will advance learning both with and between countries”, said Laura Bush, First Lady of the United States of America, and Honorary Ambassador for the UN Literacy Decade
Work cited:
http://portal.unesco.org/ci/en/ev.php-URL_ID=25521&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.html
Retrieved on March 6, 2008
Web 2.0 offers many new and different ways of communicating to others. On the one side, it is great to keep in contact with others with the new technology and it is a great way to find information. Not to say that all the information on the Web is correct or filtered.
There are some sites that are useless or inappropriate, one has to decide whether or not the information is right for viewing. 2.0 offers access to information that may not readily be available when it is needed and the Internet is a good source to find that information.
Web 2.0 can contain material that is "unfiltered, unvetted, and unattributed information", but in the long run it has given useful information that has helped me throughout school with research papers. I used the technology to clarify certain points in history that I was not clear on. I would read the printed material and whatever I found confusing I would look it up and it would make sense.
The information on the Web is not all useless, you just have to filter it for yourself and decide what is appropriate and what is garbage. As librarians, we will have to figure out what is "good" information and "bad" information on the Web.
And an article by Kat Davis is a reminder that even though Library 2.0 brings to mind computer technology, the interactive library doesn't have to rely on technology at all. As cited in that article, a senior librarian says to a junior one: "You know, the way I look at it, the public library provides access to resources. Right now that access is through books and magazines, cassettes and video tapes, art prints, puppets, reading programs, lectures and materials on microfilm and microfiche. These are all different formats for providing access to information. Why, any book you have in this library could be a door to a new program or a new area of service--so isn't offering a class on brewing beer just as valid a format as a book on brewing beer?"
I do wonder, though, is there some percentage of the library's purpose that should be devoted just to holding the resources that other people have generated, rather than generating that content itself?
Davis, K. (2007, Summer). Serve your community: give them a piece of your mind. OLA Quarterly. (Vol. 13, No. 2). pp. 27-8.
Here are a couple of examples of blogs in local libraries. And they're perfect extensions of the library's purpose.
The first is a blog of a business reference librarian at the Southfield Public Library, using the blogging software that we're using right now.
http://splbusiness.blogspot.com/
I wonder whether the absence of practically any comments has anything to do with the fact that the librarian doesn't seem to post regularly to the page (last blog posted February 12, it seems).
The second is at the Public Libraries of Saginaw. I just signed up to participate in 2 of the book clubs.
http://www.supportlibrary.com/su/su.cfm?x=222784
Apparently over the course of a business week, you get selections from a book emailed to you (for a total of 2 to 3 chapters that week). And from within the email, you can post comments to a blog. What's good about this is the variety of genres--fiction, non-fiction, horror, business, good news, mystery, romance, others.
And I guess that the fact that you're reading only a portion of the book is supposed to entice the reader to actually get to the library to check out the entire book--or maybe it's done this way just because of copyright restrictions.
Anyway, the use of a blog to have a discussion group like this is a natural extension of many people's enjoyment of reading in the first place. We like to exchange thoughts on the ideas that we've just read about--fiction or non-fiction.
The Saginaw book discussion blog doesn't seem to be run by Saginaw itself. They seem to have outsourced this function to an individual located at www.dearreader.com. And this service provides the service to libraries across the U.S. apparently. But I guess that this way, Saginaw readers are linked with a much larger community of readers. The only real problem I see so far, though, is that the blog postings don't seem to be published in real time. According to www.dearreader.com, postings are approved for publishing only twice a day. That might discourage people from rushing to post. We'll see.
Post a Comment