Monday, April 19, 2010
In Conclusion...
The last decade of development in web technology has changed the world in an unprecedented way. Undoubtedly it will continue to do so. Access to the riches of the world wide web should have a positive and empowering effect on the lives of everyday people, but to do so, it must be equally available to all, not used as a means to further widen inequality. Libraries, in their central role as sources of knowledge, will surely influence the future of the information age in Australia, in the way they choose to respond to the challenges they face.
The Haves and the Havenots
The final of the four articles reviewed is 'Encouraging the digital economy and digital citizenship' by Roxanne Missingham (Missingham, 2009).
Unlike the other three articles, Missingham's paper makes no mention of Web 2.0, its concepts, or influence, instead focussing on the entirely different issue of the digital revolution – namely the digital divide, and what libraries can do to bridge it.
The digital divide refers to the widening gap between those with access to web resources, and the large number of people, especially in rural and regional Australia, who do not.
The reasons for this inequality come down to three issues:
1)Connectivity: libraries and individuals in many areas outside the capital cities lack affordable internet access or infrastructure.
2)Content: Internet users, with the flood of information available to them, need ways of discerning its quality and reliability.
3)Capability: To be able to take advantage of internet access, computer and general literacy skills are needed on the part of individuals and their supporting services.
The paper details an attempt to rectify these problems. In May 2007, a collective of libraries launched Electronic Resources Australia (ERA) http://era.nla.gov.au/index.html, with the aim of providing a database of websites with reliable information in areas of education, health, community and business, which it is hoped will deliver both quality content and increase the literacy skills of its users, enabling them to participate in the digital economy. This approach relies on the Federal Government's planned National Broadband Network, which it is hoped will address problems of connectivity.
Although these actions, properly implemented, will have some impact on the issues identified, they overlook problems of library infrastructure, which the author, in speaking of only one of the issues, otherwise fails to address. Missingham quotes from a Mallacoota resident's senate submission which states that “the town's public library is a mobile bus” visiting every second Wednesday (Brandl, 2002, (as cited in Missingham, 2009, p. 390)). In areas with no permanent library, where access to resources is available only once a fortnight when a bus rolls into town, a broadband cable and reliable content is not going to help residents lacking a public space and points of access. Funding to address these basic needs is apparently not forthcoming, despite the obvious need.
Additionally, although a national database as proposed in the ERA plans may help capability, again a lack of staff in regional libraries to run classes on the basics of computer use will not help those whose access has been so limited that they lack even the skills to turn on a computer and conduct an internet search, skills which are surely taken for granted in more privileged areas.
Though written in plain English, the paper is none the less illogically structured, providing many statistics in the beginning to back up issues which are only later explained. None the less, it raises very real and valid points which those living in metropolitan areas of Australia can easily forget.
References
Electronic Resources Australia (ERA) http://era.nla.gov.au
/index.html
Missingham, R. (2009). Encouraging the digital economy and
digital citizenship. Australian Library Journal, 58(4), 386-399.
Retrieved from
http://search.informit.com.au.ezproxy.csu.edu.au
/documentSummary;dn=201000813;res=APAFT
Unlike the other three articles, Missingham's paper makes no mention of Web 2.0, its concepts, or influence, instead focussing on the entirely different issue of the digital revolution – namely the digital divide, and what libraries can do to bridge it.
The digital divide refers to the widening gap between those with access to web resources, and the large number of people, especially in rural and regional Australia, who do not.
The reasons for this inequality come down to three issues:
1)Connectivity: libraries and individuals in many areas outside the capital cities lack affordable internet access or infrastructure.
2)Content: Internet users, with the flood of information available to them, need ways of discerning its quality and reliability.
3)Capability: To be able to take advantage of internet access, computer and general literacy skills are needed on the part of individuals and their supporting services.
The paper details an attempt to rectify these problems. In May 2007, a collective of libraries launched Electronic Resources Australia (ERA) http://era.nla.gov.au/index.html, with the aim of providing a database of websites with reliable information in areas of education, health, community and business, which it is hoped will deliver both quality content and increase the literacy skills of its users, enabling them to participate in the digital economy. This approach relies on the Federal Government's planned National Broadband Network, which it is hoped will address problems of connectivity.
Although these actions, properly implemented, will have some impact on the issues identified, they overlook problems of library infrastructure, which the author, in speaking of only one of the issues, otherwise fails to address. Missingham quotes from a Mallacoota resident's senate submission which states that “the town's public library is a mobile bus” visiting every second Wednesday (Brandl, 2002, (as cited in Missingham, 2009, p. 390)). In areas with no permanent library, where access to resources is available only once a fortnight when a bus rolls into town, a broadband cable and reliable content is not going to help residents lacking a public space and points of access. Funding to address these basic needs is apparently not forthcoming, despite the obvious need.
Additionally, although a national database as proposed in the ERA plans may help capability, again a lack of staff in regional libraries to run classes on the basics of computer use will not help those whose access has been so limited that they lack even the skills to turn on a computer and conduct an internet search, skills which are surely taken for granted in more privileged areas.
Though written in plain English, the paper is none the less illogically structured, providing many statistics in the beginning to back up issues which are only later explained. None the less, it raises very real and valid points which those living in metropolitan areas of Australia can easily forget.
References
Electronic Resources Australia (ERA) http://era.nla.gov.au
/index.html
Missingham, R. (2009). Encouraging the digital economy and
digital citizenship. Australian Library Journal, 58(4), 386-399.
Retrieved from
http://search.informit.com.au.ezproxy.csu.edu.au
/documentSummary;dn=201000813;res=APAFT
Information is not knowledge*
That anyone, whether academic or student, would choose to read the article by Moria Levy 'Web 2.0 Implications on Knowledge Management' (Levy, 2007) except under obligation, would be surprising. The abstract alone is enough to indicate that the English grammar leaves much to be desired, and whilst this may be because the author is writing in a language other than her mother tongue, it reflects badly on the journal, that they were not able to have it edited to even make proper sense. It is very long and rather technical, and deciphering the often incorrectly constructed sentences makes for hard going, but she does none the less raise some interesting points.
The main issue of the paper is the question of whether adoption of the principles and tools of Web 2.0 can help in the attempt to make Knowledge Management more effective.
This questions discussed in an extremely through manner through three sections, consisting of lengthy descriptions and discussions of the following:
1) Web 2.0: the guiding principles at work in the creation, marketing and use of Web 2.0 applications, and the different levels within Web 2.0 classification of an application, from functioning independently through to having no functionality without the network connections of the internet
2) Enterprise 2.0, which describes when Web 2.0 principles are used in organisations (such as Group Intelligence, and tools such as blogs and wikis)
3) Knowledge Management 2.0, which Levy defines as the application of Web 2.0 principles within an organisation, as opposed to marketing, when the concepts may be broadened to include users and clients.
The conclusion arrived at is that as the principles of both Web 2.0 and KM are very similar, it would appear that there is much to be gained from organisations adopting Web 2.0 ideas in knowledge management. To give two examples: the perpetual beta concept, wherein “potential is learnt via use” (Levy, 2009, p. 130) leads to change and improvement; and content as core, which in the early days of KM was overlooked, as knowledge managers of the 1990s did not realise that without content, knowledge has no reason to exist.
Levy's oversight is that she has not considered whether her model of KM existing within organisations has any relevance for libraries, in their central position in knowledge management, existing primarily as a service for users external to the organisation. This structure may have both similarities and differences to the model she proposes.
*Quote from Albert Einstein (cited in Quotes Related to Knowledge Management or Collaboration, n.d.).
References
Levy, M. (2009). WEB 2.0 implications on knowledge management.
Journal of Knowledge Management, 13(1), 120-134.
doi:10.1108/13673270910931215
Quotes Related to Knowledge Management or Collaboration. (n.d.).
In NASA Knowledge Management Team National Aeronautics and
Space Administration. Retrieved from
http://km.nasa.gov/whatis/KM_Quotes.html
The main issue of the paper is the question of whether adoption of the principles and tools of Web 2.0 can help in the attempt to make Knowledge Management more effective.
This questions discussed in an extremely through manner through three sections, consisting of lengthy descriptions and discussions of the following:
1) Web 2.0: the guiding principles at work in the creation, marketing and use of Web 2.0 applications, and the different levels within Web 2.0 classification of an application, from functioning independently through to having no functionality without the network connections of the internet
2) Enterprise 2.0, which describes when Web 2.0 principles are used in organisations (such as Group Intelligence, and tools such as blogs and wikis)
3) Knowledge Management 2.0, which Levy defines as the application of Web 2.0 principles within an organisation, as opposed to marketing, when the concepts may be broadened to include users and clients.
The conclusion arrived at is that as the principles of both Web 2.0 and KM are very similar, it would appear that there is much to be gained from organisations adopting Web 2.0 ideas in knowledge management. To give two examples: the perpetual beta concept, wherein “potential is learnt via use” (Levy, 2009, p. 130) leads to change and improvement; and content as core, which in the early days of KM was overlooked, as knowledge managers of the 1990s did not realise that without content, knowledge has no reason to exist.
Levy's oversight is that she has not considered whether her model of KM existing within organisations has any relevance for libraries, in their central position in knowledge management, existing primarily as a service for users external to the organisation. This structure may have both similarities and differences to the model she proposes.
*Quote from Albert Einstein (cited in Quotes Related to Knowledge Management or Collaboration, n.d.).
References
Levy, M. (2009). WEB 2.0 implications on knowledge management.
Journal of Knowledge Management, 13(1), 120-134.
doi:10.1108/13673270910931215
Quotes Related to Knowledge Management or Collaboration. (n.d.).
In NASA Knowledge Management Team National Aeronautics and
Space Administration. Retrieved from
http://km.nasa.gov/whatis/KM_Quotes.html
Sunday, April 18, 2010
Doctor Who 2.0
Just like Doctor Who, the web has regenerated itself into an astonishing creature known as Web 2.0, with some extraordinary characteristics, including network effects, collective intelligence, and perpetual beta.
When you're on safari, and you witness something as extraordinary as a young buffalo being caught by lions, then stolen by crocodiles, taken back by the lions, and finally rescued by the herd of buffalo, you want to have something handy to record it on (as these American tourists did), because no-one is going to believe you when you get home. Then it's easy to post it on YouTube to show your friends, and they can show their friends, and before you know it, it's been viewed 50 million times (not an exaggeration!) Without the power of networking, even with the equipment to record such an event, it would have been practically impossible to reach an audience this size.
When people get together, great things can happen. That is why when you actively invite users to participate, you can come up with something like Wikipedia, a wealth of information from around the world, which in English alone has over three million articles. By the people, for the people, (and hopefully properly referenced)!
Collective Intelligence can also be harnessed by the web to improve itself. Just witness the way Google chooses which of the hundreds, thousands or even millions of search results to put up first: it ranks them according to the amount of attention human users have given each page and links to that page in the past, to predict how relevant the page is.
Social networking sites (such as Facebook) are a good example of perpetual beta; the programmers are constantly changing and updating the layout, capabilities and security in response to the demand of the ever increasing numbers of people using them. This may be of concern to users, who may not even be informed when security systems are changed, and how this alters what is able to be seen by whom. Just how dangerous is it to post information on the web, where theoretically, it could be hacked by anyone from a boss to a complete stranger and used against you? One Facebook user is recruiting volunteers in an attempt to find out.
So what does Doctor Who have to do with all of this? Only that in the 11th doctor's inaugural episode (first broadcast not of television, but on the ABC's internet TV page iView), he saved the world not with a tardis or sonic screwdriver, but with Web 2.0 technology – a computer virus, transmitted via mobile phone, and spread throughout the world via network effects.
References
Battle at Kruger. (2007) In YouTube. Retrieved from
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LU8DDYz68kM
Drunk last night? Don't show your boss on Facebook.
(2008, Feb 5). In ABC News. Retrieved from
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/02
/05/2154582.htm
Fenwick, P. (2009). Paul Fenwick's Facebook Privacy Study.
In Facebook. Retrieved from
http://www.facebook.com/#!/group.php?gid=145076327240
Moffat, S. (Executive Producer & Head Writer) & Wenger, P.
(Executive Producer). (2009, April). Doctor Who Series 5:
Episode 1: The Eleventh Hour. [Television broadcast]. London:
BBC. (Moffat & Wenger, 2009.) Retrieved from
http://www.abc.net.au/iview/#/view/544847
Welcome to Wikipedia. (n.d.) Retrieved from
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page
When you're on safari, and you witness something as extraordinary as a young buffalo being caught by lions, then stolen by crocodiles, taken back by the lions, and finally rescued by the herd of buffalo, you want to have something handy to record it on (as these American tourists did), because no-one is going to believe you when you get home. Then it's easy to post it on YouTube to show your friends, and they can show their friends, and before you know it, it's been viewed 50 million times (not an exaggeration!) Without the power of networking, even with the equipment to record such an event, it would have been practically impossible to reach an audience this size.
When people get together, great things can happen. That is why when you actively invite users to participate, you can come up with something like Wikipedia, a wealth of information from around the world, which in English alone has over three million articles. By the people, for the people, (and hopefully properly referenced)!
Collective Intelligence can also be harnessed by the web to improve itself. Just witness the way Google chooses which of the hundreds, thousands or even millions of search results to put up first: it ranks them according to the amount of attention human users have given each page and links to that page in the past, to predict how relevant the page is.
Social networking sites (such as Facebook) are a good example of perpetual beta; the programmers are constantly changing and updating the layout, capabilities and security in response to the demand of the ever increasing numbers of people using them. This may be of concern to users, who may not even be informed when security systems are changed, and how this alters what is able to be seen by whom. Just how dangerous is it to post information on the web, where theoretically, it could be hacked by anyone from a boss to a complete stranger and used against you? One Facebook user is recruiting volunteers in an attempt to find out.
So what does Doctor Who have to do with all of this? Only that in the 11th doctor's inaugural episode (first broadcast not of television, but on the ABC's internet TV page iView), he saved the world not with a tardis or sonic screwdriver, but with Web 2.0 technology – a computer virus, transmitted via mobile phone, and spread throughout the world via network effects.
References
Battle at Kruger. (2007) In YouTube. Retrieved from
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LU8DDYz68kM
Drunk last night? Don't show your boss on Facebook.
(2008, Feb 5). In ABC News. Retrieved from
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/02
/05/2154582.htm
Fenwick, P. (2009). Paul Fenwick's Facebook Privacy Study.
In Facebook. Retrieved from
http://www.facebook.com/#!/group.php?gid=145076327240
Moffat, S. (Executive Producer & Head Writer) & Wenger, P.
(Executive Producer). (2009, April). Doctor Who Series 5:
Episode 1: The Eleventh Hour. [Television broadcast]. London:
BBC. (Moffat & Wenger, 2009.) Retrieved from
http://www.abc.net.au/iview/#/view/544847
Welcome to Wikipedia. (n.d.) Retrieved from
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page
To be or not to be
This post discusses Fred Heath's 'Documenting the Global Conversation: Relevancy of Libraries in a Digital World' (Heath, 2009), obviously the written version of a conference talk, as published in the Journal of Library Administration. It takes a realistic approach, with concrete examples, of how libraries, like many media, are affected by the rise of the web, which Heath denotes as 'culprit'. I am sympathetic with his viewpoint, as it is well-informed by his role within university libraries, and he details measures already being undertaken to increase the relevance of libraries to today's students and researchers within the changing world of information.
The issues raised are stark. Many consider libraries already obsolete; the web is changing people's relationships with media (newspapers, music, books, higher education) faster than those media can adapt to survive, and even the future of universities themselves could be in doubt as information is increasingly freely available. Libraries no longer have a monopoly as disseminators of credible information. Media such as newspapers and publishers are either shutting down, merging, or drastically cutting costs in an effort to stay afloat, and old business models no longer function in the unstable economic climate.
Heath, having outlined the doomsday scenario of the web obliterating all alternative routes of information dissemination, then goes on to show how libraries can continue to do what they have always done – supporting academic research and critical inquiry – though how they do this will change.
He details changes already taking place at The University of Texas, such as downscaling and merging physical collections in favour of digital resources, leaving more money for other services. This overlooks the problem of the extremely rapid change of digital data formats; I can pick up a 100-year-old book and open it without difficulty, but if a data CD is even five years old, I could have trouble. Copying vast amounts of data over into a new format every few years would be daunting, not to mention costly! Manuscripts and earlier editions of books also have great academic value in certain contexts, but are overlooked in Heath's new world order.
He neglects to discuss that what librarians can do is to support academic study with personal contact, guiding scholars through the vast and increasingly difficult-to-navigate amounts of information available. Librarians need to be proficient in this digital environment in order to help others. In failing to mention this factor, Heath seems to have either assumed that they are all already proficient in this (unlikely given the ageing librarian population and the speed of information development), or overlooked that this is a valuable service. The University of New South Wales library provides research consultations which assist students to access Web 2.0 resources. This skills gap would go some way towards explaining why 'The Digital Environment' (this very subject) is compulsory in CSU's Master of Information Studies.
Heath at least shows that efforts to keep libraries relevant are going in the right direction.
References
Heath, F. (2009). Documenting the Global Conversation: Relevancy
of Libraries in a Digital World. Journal of Library Administration,
49(5), 519-532. doi:10.1080/01930820903090896
INF405 The Digital Environment (8). In Handbook 2010 Charles Sturt
University. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.csu.edu.au
/handbook/handbook10/subjects/INF405.html
Master of Information Studies. In Handbook 2010 Charles Sturt
University. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.csu.edu.au
/handbook/handbook10/postgraduate
/MInfoStud.htm#course
Research consultations. In Research & teaching support UNSW
Library. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.library.unsw.edu.au
/servicesfor/academic/rescon.html
The issues raised are stark. Many consider libraries already obsolete; the web is changing people's relationships with media (newspapers, music, books, higher education) faster than those media can adapt to survive, and even the future of universities themselves could be in doubt as information is increasingly freely available. Libraries no longer have a monopoly as disseminators of credible information. Media such as newspapers and publishers are either shutting down, merging, or drastically cutting costs in an effort to stay afloat, and old business models no longer function in the unstable economic climate.
Heath, having outlined the doomsday scenario of the web obliterating all alternative routes of information dissemination, then goes on to show how libraries can continue to do what they have always done – supporting academic research and critical inquiry – though how they do this will change.
He details changes already taking place at The University of Texas, such as downscaling and merging physical collections in favour of digital resources, leaving more money for other services. This overlooks the problem of the extremely rapid change of digital data formats; I can pick up a 100-year-old book and open it without difficulty, but if a data CD is even five years old, I could have trouble. Copying vast amounts of data over into a new format every few years would be daunting, not to mention costly! Manuscripts and earlier editions of books also have great academic value in certain contexts, but are overlooked in Heath's new world order.
He neglects to discuss that what librarians can do is to support academic study with personal contact, guiding scholars through the vast and increasingly difficult-to-navigate amounts of information available. Librarians need to be proficient in this digital environment in order to help others. In failing to mention this factor, Heath seems to have either assumed that they are all already proficient in this (unlikely given the ageing librarian population and the speed of information development), or overlooked that this is a valuable service. The University of New South Wales library provides research consultations which assist students to access Web 2.0 resources. This skills gap would go some way towards explaining why 'The Digital Environment' (this very subject) is compulsory in CSU's Master of Information Studies.
Heath at least shows that efforts to keep libraries relevant are going in the right direction.
References
Heath, F. (2009). Documenting the Global Conversation: Relevancy
of Libraries in a Digital World. Journal of Library Administration,
49(5), 519-532. doi:10.1080/01930820903090896
INF405 The Digital Environment (8). In Handbook 2010 Charles Sturt
University. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.csu.edu.au
/handbook/handbook10/subjects/INF405.html
Master of Information Studies. In Handbook 2010 Charles Sturt
University. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.csu.edu.au
/handbook/handbook10/postgraduate
/MInfoStud.htm#course
Research consultations. In Research & teaching support UNSW
Library. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.library.unsw.edu.au
/servicesfor/academic/rescon.html
Monday, April 12, 2010
If you prick us, do we not bleed?*
This blog article reviews Paul Anderson's editorial titled ''All That Glisters Is Not Gold' Web 2.0 and the Librarian' (Anderson, 2007), from the Journal of Librarianship and Information Science.
In this editorial, the author tries to present a framework for understanding the role of libraries in the context of the changing Web, specifically what he refers to as Web 2.0. While his technical expertise is admirable, his background in computer science does not place him in a good position to be assessing the role and needs of libraries and their relationship with Web 2.0, and this comes through in his writing.
He ably discusses the various types of uses recently arisen on the web, but does not manage to give any concrete examples of how these advances are relevant to libraries themselves, or even whether libraries should be changing with the web. Perhaps his mention of libraries in the introduction is purely to imply relevance to the readers of the particular journal for which he is writing.
Anderson identifies the following three main issues:
1) The web is changing (these changes are termed 'Web 2.0')
2) Libraries need to adapt to these changes
3) We need a framework to understand how
'Web 2.0' is a term coined in 2004 by Dale Doherty, a director of O'Reilly Media, during a conference about the future of the web. It was intended to convey a sense of optimism; that despite the 'dot-com bust', the web is now more important than ever, and rapidly changing so as to be both vastly different from even a decade earlier, and also far more important to users in their everyday lives. The big difference is that the web is now interactive, with large proportions of its content able to be changed and updated by the users, in formats such as wikis, blogs, and social networking sites. Anderson states that the long answer to 'what is Web 2.0?' is “rather more complicated and pulls in economics, technology and new ideas about the connected society”, but then completely fails to mention what any of those factors may be.
Having given an overview of 'Web 2.0', Anderson then presents his framework for discussion of Web 2.0, which reads rather more like a framework for understanding the web itself on three different levels (the visible, 'six big ideas', and web technologies and standards), rather than being a structure promoting discussion of the role of libraries in the changing world of information technology. He fails to relate his discussion of the web to the survival of libraries at all, and infers that the reader will see the relationship between the two, which might be taking our powers of imagination for granted. He does not at any stage look at whether Web 2.0 is relevant to libraries, and whether they need to adapt and change to meet changing demands, or whether library users are perhaps a completely different subset of society from those engaging in the interactive web space. There are no examples given for how libraries might think about adopting some of these technologies, with the exception of mention of one experiment in asking a youth reading group to design a MySpace group for the library to facilitate easier sharing of reading lists. (This assumes that young people are not using libraries, however Australian library user demographics (see Culture and Leisure) demonstrate that library use is in fact highest among the youngest age group, and gradually decreases with age (Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2007).) Overall the lack of concrete examples was tedious, and what few examples there were were often irrelevant and vague.
One valid point made however, was that librarians' experience with open source information puts them in a good position to be able to discuss the ethics of Web 2.0, particularly with regards to privacy and copyright.
In conclusion, if there is to be discussion on the relevance of libraries in the 21st Century, we will need a better way of looking at the questions than Anderson's framework.
* Quote from 'The Merchant of Venice' (Shakespeare, 1600, Act 3, Scene 1.)
References
Anderson, P. (2007). 'All That Glisters is Not Gold' Web 2.0 and the
Librarian. Journal of Librarianship and Information Science,
39(4), 195-198. doi:10.1177/0961000607083210
Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2007). Culture and Leisure. In
4159.0 - General Social Survey: Summary Results, Australia,
2006. Retrieved from http://www.abs.gov.au/Ausstats
/abs@.nsf/Lookup/C6BF68E57D3A308CCA256E21007686F8
Shakespeare, W. (1600). The Merchant of Venice. London: Thomas
Heyes.
O'Reilly, T. (2005). What is Web 2.0 Design Patterns and Software
for the Next Generation of Software. In O'Reilly. Retrieved
from http://oreilly.com/web2/archive/what-is-web-20.html
In this editorial, the author tries to present a framework for understanding the role of libraries in the context of the changing Web, specifically what he refers to as Web 2.0. While his technical expertise is admirable, his background in computer science does not place him in a good position to be assessing the role and needs of libraries and their relationship with Web 2.0, and this comes through in his writing.
He ably discusses the various types of uses recently arisen on the web, but does not manage to give any concrete examples of how these advances are relevant to libraries themselves, or even whether libraries should be changing with the web. Perhaps his mention of libraries in the introduction is purely to imply relevance to the readers of the particular journal for which he is writing.
Anderson identifies the following three main issues:
1) The web is changing (these changes are termed 'Web 2.0')
2) Libraries need to adapt to these changes
3) We need a framework to understand how
'Web 2.0' is a term coined in 2004 by Dale Doherty, a director of O'Reilly Media, during a conference about the future of the web. It was intended to convey a sense of optimism; that despite the 'dot-com bust', the web is now more important than ever, and rapidly changing so as to be both vastly different from even a decade earlier, and also far more important to users in their everyday lives. The big difference is that the web is now interactive, with large proportions of its content able to be changed and updated by the users, in formats such as wikis, blogs, and social networking sites. Anderson states that the long answer to 'what is Web 2.0?' is “rather more complicated and pulls in economics, technology and new ideas about the connected society”, but then completely fails to mention what any of those factors may be.
Having given an overview of 'Web 2.0', Anderson then presents his framework for discussion of Web 2.0, which reads rather more like a framework for understanding the web itself on three different levels (the visible, 'six big ideas', and web technologies and standards), rather than being a structure promoting discussion of the role of libraries in the changing world of information technology. He fails to relate his discussion of the web to the survival of libraries at all, and infers that the reader will see the relationship between the two, which might be taking our powers of imagination for granted. He does not at any stage look at whether Web 2.0 is relevant to libraries, and whether they need to adapt and change to meet changing demands, or whether library users are perhaps a completely different subset of society from those engaging in the interactive web space. There are no examples given for how libraries might think about adopting some of these technologies, with the exception of mention of one experiment in asking a youth reading group to design a MySpace group for the library to facilitate easier sharing of reading lists. (This assumes that young people are not using libraries, however Australian library user demographics (see Culture and Leisure) demonstrate that library use is in fact highest among the youngest age group, and gradually decreases with age (Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2007).) Overall the lack of concrete examples was tedious, and what few examples there were were often irrelevant and vague.
One valid point made however, was that librarians' experience with open source information puts them in a good position to be able to discuss the ethics of Web 2.0, particularly with regards to privacy and copyright.
In conclusion, if there is to be discussion on the relevance of libraries in the 21st Century, we will need a better way of looking at the questions than Anderson's framework.
* Quote from 'The Merchant of Venice' (Shakespeare, 1600, Act 3, Scene 1.)
References
Anderson, P. (2007). 'All That Glisters is Not Gold' Web 2.0 and the
Librarian. Journal of Librarianship and Information Science,
39(4), 195-198. doi:10.1177/0961000607083210
Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2007). Culture and Leisure. In
4159.0 - General Social Survey: Summary Results, Australia,
2006. Retrieved from http://www.abs.gov.au/Ausstats
/abs@.nsf/Lookup/C6BF68E57D3A308CCA256E21007686F8
Shakespeare, W. (1600). The Merchant of Venice. London: Thomas
Heyes.
O'Reilly, T. (2005). What is Web 2.0 Design Patterns and Software
for the Next Generation of Software. In O'Reilly. Retrieved
from http://oreilly.com/web2/archive/what-is-web-20.html
Sunday, April 11, 2010
Introduction
What does it mean, to say we are in an information age? How has the advance of the internet influenced the way we use information? What will this mean for libraries, and their traditional vestiges of information, books?
By means of the following four article reviews addressing such questions, I will discuss these issues, and examine what forms the answers might take.
By means of the following four article reviews addressing such questions, I will discuss these issues, and examine what forms the answers might take.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
