Overview of Social Networking and Web 2.0
These days, librarians have to know much more than how to alphabetize by author and tell patrons to take their conversations elsewhere. Information seeking has gone from a rather passive activity involving physical repositories of musty tomes to an interactive and user-directed collaboration between the seeker and the source. This is all very exciting, but where do librarians fit into this brave new world? We know that we’ve left behind the old models for information seeking, but what’s next? What are the new tools and technologies that are now available to libraries?
As our culture has embraced technology and the advent of the internet, libraries have stepped up to be on the front lines of this revolution in how people learn, think, and interact with the wealth of information that is now readily accessible. The term “Library 2.0” has come into use to describe the model for how libraries want to fit into this collaborative environment. This is modeled after the term “Web 2.0” that is used to describe how the internet and the World Wide Web evolved from its passive first incarnation, “Web 1.0” where users would only visit sites to view the information and leave again, to the user-driven and collaborative version that we find today. In Web 2.0, users can modify the content of websites, carry on discussions with people on the other side of the world, upload and share photos and documents, work together on projects without ever touching a piece of paper or meeting face-to-face, and so much more. By extension, “Library 1.0” refers to the model whereby the flow of information between patron and library was one-way. A person would go to their library, most likely having to physically enter the establishment, and search for information using physical tools. This could be done either by the patron locating the desired book, periodical, or other physical item by him or herself, or by the patron seeking the assistance of a librarian who would locate the material on behalf of the patron. In contrast, in “Library 2.0” the flow of information goes in both directions as the patron is contributing to the process of information seeking through the various portals that a library makes available to better serve their patrons’ needs and expectations. By no means are libraries trying to discourage their patrons from using their physical location as they once did, but libraries are now making it easier to serve their communities through virtual means such as through their websites and through various social networking tools.
The key to keeping libraries relevant and connected to their communities and to the needs and wants of their patrons can be found in the new social networking technologies that have come into widespread usage as Web 2.0 has become the accepted and even assumed way of doing things. Social networking basically describes the ways that users of the internet can connect with other users and share ideas, discussions, photos and music, and build both professional and personal relationships. Social networking tools are essential to relationships between people who will never or very seldom meet face-to-face, but are also important to friends and colleagues who spend every day together in the same workspace or school.
We will cover social networking sites in more detail in a further post, but here are a few of the most well-known and frequently used.
Wikis: Pbwiki, Wikispaces, Wetpaint
Recent Sources/Further Reading:
Farkas, M. (December 2007). “ Your Stuff, Their Space: Promoting Library Content Beyond Your Website.” American Libraries, 38(11), 36.
Farkas, M. (January/February 2008) . “What Are Friends For? Capitalizing On Your Online Rolodex.” American Libraries, 39(1/2), 36.
Huwe, T.K. (November/December 2007). “In 2007, Community-Building Tools Rule.” Computers in Libraries, 27(10), 31-33.
Rapacki, Sean. (Winter 2007). “Social Networking Sites: Why Teens Need Places Like Myspace.” Young Adult Library Services, 5(2), 28-30.
Scott, D.M. (December 2007). “Social Media Debate.” Econtent, 30(10), 64.
Tenopir, C. (December 2007). “Web 2.0: Our Cultural Downfall?” Library Journal, 132(20), 36.
White, M. (December 2007). “Donne and Lennon Said It So Well.” Econtent, 30(10), 20.
Some questions to consider:
Do you think that libraries have diluted their essential purpose by embracing social networking? Why or why not?
Is social networking just a fad or is it here to stay? How will we know? When will we know?
Does Library 2.0’s emphasis on emerging technologies run the risk of leaving behind members of the community who have not yet made the leap to using the internet?
16 comments:
I don't think that libraries have necessarily diluted their central purpose by embracing social networking. They are still connecting users with information, but in a different manner. While Library 2.0 does require a “fundamental change in a library's mission” (Blyberg 2006) , I don’t think that this change involves a dilution. I think it is just a shift that is necessary to keep up with the changes in technology and in what the new generation of library users is looking for.
Millennials “form the largest population group since the Boomers at 87 million”, and in order to stay relevant librarians have to keep their information seeking needs and behaviors in mind. (Abram 2001). This means including the technology they are using, such as social networking technology. This is why I don’t think this is just a fad. Traditional library services can still be provided to users who haven’t made the technological “leap”, but in order to stay relevant libraries have to keep up with these changes. As John Blyberg puts it “if we don’t acknowledge the weighty significant of L2 we will not just be running the risk of sliding into obscurity, we just won’t be that important to society.” (Blyberg 2006)
Bibliography
Abram, Stephen. "Born with the Chip." Library Journal, May 2001: 34-37.
Blyberg. John. (2006). “11 Reasons Why Library 2.0 Exists and Matters,” blyberg.net, Jan 9, 2006, www.blyberg.net/2006/01/09/11-reasons-why-library-20-exists-and-matters
You ask whether libraries risk diluting their essential purpose by choosing to embrace new technologies, including social networking. I believe the answer depends first on defining what a library’s essential purpose is. If the purpose of a library is collecting materials, such as books and periodicals, for patrons to use, or providing a quiet space for reading and studying, the answer is probably yes. But if you believe that the library is not so much place as it is a community service (see, Maness, 2006), then embracing new technologies does not dilute a library’s purpose, but rather is essential to it.
Throughout time libraries have distinguished themselves from simple manuscript warehouses by developing and refining systems for organizing, retrieving, and, most importantly, sharing information. To me, embracing new technology is a logical extension of this process.
“It does not require much imagination to begin seeing a library as a social network itself.” (Maness, 2006). Libraries have always been gathering places where people could share ideas and work together towards a common purpose. (Moress, 2006). Accordingly, “[o]f all the social aspects of Web 2.0, it could be that the social network and its successors most greatly mirror that of the traditional library.” Maness, 2006).
And over the past few decades, as many people have lost important social connections they once took for granted due to increasing mobility and sprawling automobile dependent communities, providing social networking to patrons may be one of the few ways left to help people reconnect and transmit thoughts and ideas about politics, religion, and so on to each other.
…But might this move towards integrating new technologies into traditional library services leave some patrons behind. I think this is quite possible, and feel it’s important for librarians to be conscious of the technological literacy of their users and factor this in to all forward looking plans.
On the flip side, however, Library 2.0 might also expand the library community. As we discussed in class, technology is probably an absolute necessity for attracting and retaining younger patrons. But also, with the right technologies, many disabled persons may for the first time participate in library activities on an equal (or nearly equal) playing field with the rest of us—provided they are not locked out.
Ironically, social networking sites currently lock out the users who, arguably, have the most to gain from on-line social networking, for example by relying on CAPTCHA images – the “visual verification code used to determine whether the end user is human.” (Ability Net, 2008).
“While Library 2.0 is a change, it is of a nature close to the tradition and mission of libraries. It enables the access to information across society, the sharing of that information, and the utilization of it for the progress of the society. Library 2.0, really, is merely a description of the latest instance of a long-standing and time-tested institution in a democratic society. Web 2.0 and libraries are well suited for marriage, and many librarians have recognized so.” (Maness, 2006).
Cites:
AbilityNet (2008, January 18). State of the eNation Reports: Social networking sites lock out disabled users. Retrieved on March 3, 2008, from http://www.abilitynet.org.uk/enation85.
Maness, J. (2006, June 29). Library 2.0 theory: Web 2.0 and its implications for libraries. Webology (3)2. Retrieved on March 3, 2008, from http://www.webology.ir/2006/v3n2/a25.html.
How social networking is put to use in the library will determine its durabilty. It can be fluff or be creatively used for real communication within the library between staffers, between the patrons and the library, and within the community. How effectively it is used to reach the community will reflect the level of professionalism and relevance of the library. The potential of social networking is unlimited if it stays focused on and adapts to the evolving nature of the library and its place in the community. Do we want libraries to stay the same or do we want them to become the information hubs that the community revolves around that we have talked about in class? It is an evolving situation and community members who have not made the leap into the internet do not have to feel left out. The old ways will still be available for they form the bricks upon which the library has been built; but they can also be invited into the new world with simple classes on how to navigate the library website. Perhaps one thing could lead to another. Imagine if most people could just learn how to blog?( Stephens, 2007) talks about librarians and their "motivatons for and and benefits of blogging. These reasons include participating in community, sharing expertise, and gaining recognition in the field...a library can have a rich, dynamic, multimedia website at little or no cost and with little effort just by maintainng a blog". And Stephens talks about "mashing up services" such as wikis and IM - it sounds intimidating but it is reality of today and there is no going back. Social networking can let patrons in on book clubs, community events, discussions of new library plans, research opportunities, instant access to a librarian. It is an assortment of tools that people can choose to use or not - but if they can, how much more enlivening the library experience can be. And how much bigger that library crowd is going to get!
Stephens, Michael. "Tools from 'Web 2.0 & Libraries: Best Practices for Social Software' Revisited".Library Technology Reports. Chicago:Sep/Oct 2007. Vol. 43, Iss. 5; pg. 15, 17 pgs
I don't necessarily think that libraries are diluting their essential purpose by embracing social networking. I think that in order to remain in existence libraries have to evolve, otherwise they are doing a disservice to those they serve. Social networking is a way for libraries to build and improve upon their original "essential purpose" and to expand their services beyond the traditional scope. What is really at the heart of a library's essential purpose anyway? Is it truly about physical books, or is it something more. Shouldn't customer service be at the heart of a library's essential purpose, so then no matter what a library evolves into, the essential purpose would never be "diluted" As Abram's states "even when technical tools and terminology seem to change really fast, customer service remains the constant aim."
Abram, Stephen, Lorig, J., Siess, J.A. (2007). Out Front with Stephen Abram: A Guide for Information Leaders. Chicago: American Library.
The central purpose of libraries is connecting people with information; therefore, libraries have to keep up with changes in technology and information. If libraries continue to embrace social networking, they will continue to be relevant and crucial to the younger generations who are growing up with information technology all around them. Library 2.0 will only enhance the exchange of information between patrons and librarians.
“No matter how hard we try, many of the services we offer are not being used by a majority of our population. It's never been easy to reach this group with physical services, because libraries are constrained by space and money and cannot carry every item that every user desires.” - http://www.libraryjournal.com/article/CA6365200.html
With Library 2.0, a library’s collection can reach beyond the walls of a physical library now. This will serve to enrich and enlarge the patron’s opportunity for greater access of information.
Source:
Library 2.0
Service for the next-generation library
By Michael E. Casey and Laura C. Savastinuk -- Library Journal, 9/1/2006
I do not think that the focus on Library 2.0 will leave behind patrons that do not know how to use or choose not to use the internet. The library is still a physical place where patrons can go to gain information, check out books, or find a quiet place to study. Patrons do not need to be internet friendly to be able to do these things. I do think it is important that libraries continue to run programs that do not have anything to do with Library 2.0. Such programs could include discussions held on certain topics and having a mobil library for patrons who do not have a way to get to the library.
I don't feel that libraries have diluted their central purpose due to social networking. Actually, I feel that libraries have evolved and found a more solid purpose, which has led them to Library 2.0. I think I wrote in length on the first blog about how libraries are becoming more and more about customer service and serving the needs of the patron. I think this falls directly in line with the need to be relevant to the community. As librarians I feel there is a great need to show communities that we can't be outdated and that we can keep up with the times and with their needs.
Unfortunatly, there is still the stigma of the stuffy boring library for us to contend with. Just today I was getting my hair cut and as I spoke with the lady cutting my hair she asked me what I was going to school for. When I told her the look on her face looked absolutely pained and she expressed that she thought it would be an awfully boring career. This is not the first time I've been met with that.
It is this reason that I feel Library 2.0 is very important for us. Its a way to get patron feedback on collections and programs, its a way to spread the word about important library issues and events, and its a great way to find out what other librarians are doing to make their libraries better places.
While I think it is important to call upon one of our recent articles and the point made that technology should support us and not drive us, I feel in general the tools that Library 2.0 gives us are a great opporunity to provide access to information, community service, and to create relevance in our communities.
Kelly M: I think you make an excellent point by saying that libraries and librarians using embracing Web 2.0 and social networking tools “they are still connecting users with information, but in a different manner.” The end result is the same. The patron is connected to the information he or she is seeking in by using some of the same familiar internet sites and applications that she or he might use to keep up with friends and participate in online discussions. This is what they know and are comfortable using.
Kathryn: You make an important distinction about what the purpose of libraries now is. If the ALA and other organizations had dug in their heels and refused to expand the domain of libraries from books and other physical media to include all forms of information, then all the forms of social networking we have discussed would be seen as the enemy and perhaps as a form of cheating. But instead libraries have really stepped up and admitted that the world has changed and that they need to change too. It must have been a frightening thing for an entire profession to realize that they needed to rethink many of their approaches and fundamental values.
Anne J: It’s interested that you say that the value of social networking tools will be found in how they are used. I think a lot of libraries are adding things like Myspace and Facebook just to get their foot in the door, and while some libraries are surprised and pleased with the results as these sites expand what they can accomplish, others may not figure out exactly how to get any use out of them and abandon the project. My own local library is tiny, but they gamely started a couple of blogs for book discussion. Hardly anyone has responded, mostly because I don’t think the general public is aware of their existence. I only noticed them myself when I was looking for a completely unrelated piece of information and stumbled across them. Now the library has given them up as a failed experiment. If they had found a way to put them more prominently on the library’s homepage or advertise them from the library, perhaps this would have been a different story, but instead this is held up as an example of why their patrons are uninterested in experiencing the library through these new technologies.
As libraries are a place in which people can go to find information, it is important to keep up with the technology the general public is using. As we've discussed in class, it seems the key will be to know about what's out there, and implement what's relevant to the patrons of each library, respectively. It will be a challenge to find the balance between continuing services for those unwilling to change, and technologically updated services that will draw in and hold the attention of younger generations. Although books are the foundation of most libraries, databases, online card catalogs, and internet access have already provided many patrons with more efficient, helpful ways to gather the information they need. To refuse to continue the process of learning will inevitably turn off the younger generation. The world kids are growing up in now is different than that which even we grew up in. The way information is gathered is different. Evolution is expected in order to keep up.
Xanthe, what great questions you ask. (And I'd have posted much earlier if I hadn't forgotten that this blog was up this week.) All of the previous commenters have covered this topic so well. But that won't stop me from reiterating that--as particularly, Kathryn has pointed out--whether social networking technology "dilutes" the library's essential purpose does depend on how one defines that essential purpose.
In my LISP admissions application, I noted that many people--myself included--view the library as a way of connecting people with ideas and thoughts and facts (both past and present). And not all of those ideas and thoughts and facts will be found in books. (But everyone already knows this--consider the vast array of electronic databases.)
But lines always have to be drawn somewhere. Should a social networking site sponsored by the library be purely for "social networking"? I'll say that I don't think so--even though I'm not sure everyone would agree on what exactly simple "social networking" is. But I do agree that it is a way to get people's foot in the library door--just like the California book ATM we talked about in class on Monday.
Bethany: I really like what you said about customer service being essential to libraries. That's probably what's really at the heart of the library evolution: the desire to serve patrons in the best way possible and in the manner that they are the most comfortable with. Libraries are adding all of these services because they are finding that it's the best way to reach their patrons, not soley because they want to stay hip.
Holly: It's funny what you say about social networking sites that are fads. My 25 year old sister was all about Myspace and Facebook, but now she says that Myspace is too cluttered and commecial and "everybody" is on Facebook, so she's over it. What's next? Who knows, but certainly something is going to come along and we'll all have to adapt again!
Melissa: You bring up a good point by saying that libraries are still everything they once were: quiet study places, community centers, and sources of information and amusement. Using technology should only enhance what libraries have traditionally done, not supplant it.
"Do you think that libraries have diluted their essential purpose by embracing social networking? Why or why not?"
My answer would be a definitive "no." Libraries should be trying their best to meet users where the user is comfortable - and if that is on MySpace or Facebook, then that's where the library should go. So long as the library is using those sites to get information to users, then it is its job.
There is always a risk of leaving behind members of the community who do not embrace the internet. I think they can be true for any new and improve techology.I'm sure people, especially in more rural areas contined to use a horse and buggy long after the automobile invented. Libraries like anything should never put all their eggs in one basket. We need to continue to promote printed material but also cater to the needs of more tech-savvy patrons. It is like a balancing act because Web 2.0 will not just disappear.
The library is a place where social networking happens all the time. The library's main function is to provide information, whether it is over the Internet of finding it on a shelf. With technology evolving in the current day and age, libraries have to keep up with the demand to better help the patrons that visit the library on a daily basis.
The patrons that use the library are still finding the information in one form or another. Many people have conformed to the technology, but on the other hand there is the older generation that still prefers the physical interaction. With technology advancing, many are worried that some of the members of the community will be left behind and I don't believe that is the case. Many go to the library to obtain information even if they do not use the Internet. Many people come to the library to study and they are able to focus on what they need to get done. Internet is not the only way to get information, some libraries still offer book discussions and the library I work at has a bookmobile that caters to others that are unable to visit the library.
People still enjoy visiting the library and new technology is not for everyone, but in the end, everyone still has access to information either way.
Roby J: It seems like a lot of Library 2.0 is forward thinking in that it is focused on maintaining a relationship with the young, technologically savvy generation who will grow up and one day be the grownups, making way for another generation who will no doubt be even more plugged in. Libraries have to make every effort to staying relevant now so as to have a place in the lives of the current generation and to be there when the next one arrives. However, our culture seems to be straddling a technological divide with Next Generation on one side, happily IMing each other, and those who are more comfortable with traditional libraries on the other. Perhaps trying to serve both of these populations is somewhat of a challenge, but also a good exercise in maintaining a commitment to physical spaces and places while at the same time moving forwards.
Keegan: I find myself in total agreement with your ideas about customer service, which are also similar to those expressed by Bethany above. I think that much of this focus on Library 2.0 is customer service driven. If there was no demand for it from the community, then none of this would be happening. All of the changes that libraries are making to adapt to technology are in answer to what is happening in the wider world.
And I’ve had a couple of encounters like you one you describe with your hairstylist. It’s so depressing to answer someone’s question about what you’re studying and have them react with an “ohhhh” of sympathy instead of the excitement you feel! It’s up to us to draw more people into libraries so that they understand how they’ve evolved and responded. If library students have to be taught about Library 2.0, it’s probably too much to expect that the rest of the world will learn about it without experiencing what it can do for them.
Nicole: In a way, right now as Library 1.0 changes into Library 2.0 it feels like this might be the biggest challenge to libraries that I can think of. Of course technology has changed before. Books have become cheaper and easier to print, information retrieval has gotten easier, but with the advent of the internet, libraries have had to completely rethink their missions. I think you’re absolutely right that if libraries fail to meet this challenge, they will lose the current generation forever and become no more than dinosaurs. This would indeed be tragic because libraries aren’t fighting to stay relevant simply to save themselves, but because our communities need what we have to offer.
Post a Comment