Alexandra Santos (100059670)
With the end of the ‘read-only’ web era a new dawn for the internet emerged with the birth of web 2.0. (O’Reilly, 2005)
This web 2.0 and its tools brought sought changes not only to the way we use the World Wide Web but also to the way we use/seek/create information. Trying to respond to these impending developments libraries faced new challenges and started to rethink their strategies and services. An insight will be given to the components of Web 2.0 and the use of its technologies in a library environment. The emergence of Library 2.0 will be raised together with some reflections on the impact brought by these technologies to libraries.
1. Concept and characteristics
A clear difference between web 1.0 and web 2.0 can be drawn. While the first offered less interactivity to the user, content in websites was fixed and very little collaboration was permitted, the second allows interconnection with a community of users together with the sharing and contribution of new content.
Web 2.0 appears sometimes associated ambiguously with social media, nevertheless it is important to point out that social media doesn’t cover only web technologies and the stress is more on the social use of media (Anttiroiko, 2011).
Although there is no set definition of Web 2.0 and some controversy surrounds this designation (Kroski, 2006) this one is proposed:”The Web 2.0 refers to the interactive, user-centred design of the world wide web where users not only access the web content but at the same time generate the web content.” (Aqil, Ahmad and Siddique 2011, p.395)
Therefore and supported by O’Reilly this platform enables “creating network effects through an "architecture of participation," and going beyond the page metaphor of Web 1.0 to deliver rich user experiences.” (O’Reilly, 2005)
Applications and software are available on the web platform for users to download or subscribe as a service and no longer as a costly packaged product as in Web 1.0 that needed to be purchased and installed. Web 2.0 conducts to the creation of applications that allows users to generate new content. By designing simple software that can be developed together with the feedback from users, information is shared instead of being controlled. The importance of a feedback works towards encouragement of participation and improvements. It is simple to use, to contribute and accessible to everyone making its content dynamic, costless and effective.
This networking allows the addition of value by the increase of participants, the better the use and selection performed by users, the better the system becomes. For example when we look for a particular service/product on the web, by considering the reviews and recommendations we are relying on others users’ experiences. Providers of these services/products can use these reviews as regulatory tools for development.
Based on the same participatory principle, companies started implementing internal networking systems. Members of staff were then able to share and improve their working knowledge forming what can be called collective intelligence.
The rich user experience aspect of Web 2.0 can in fact be applied to a library: “It is a model for library service that encourages constant and purposeful change, inviting user participation in the creation of both the physical and the virtual services they want, supported by consistently evaluating services.”(Brophy, 2007, p. 172)
On the other hand, the long tail effect (Anderson, 2006) through networking can be decisive in sharing resources either between libraries or with users. Exploring and making accessible innumerable threads of common interest can bring together communities of patrons, being researchers, students, professionals or the general public.
With web 2.0 tools, soon libraries were eager to innovate and reach out for the users and their information needs. It could open the range of possibilities when offering interactivity with their users even if they would be far away, promoting online real time communicating and referencing.
2. Library 2.0 – a mashup
The potentialities offered by web 2.0 were taken into account by a good number of libraries and the concept of Library 2.0 first emerged in Michael Casey’s previous blog. Here is a more recent view by the same author on the evolution of the concept:
“Participatory library services have come a long way over the past six years. You don’t have to look far to see libraries participating in social media outlets, interacting with their community through blogs and SMS, and polling their users with online surveying tools. Entire industries have grown up around the idea of the participatory library (...)”. (Casey, 2011)
Many libraries use their blog as an online space to publicize their events, readings and information about new publications as for instance http://libraryblog.co.uk/.
Regarding the following website http://uklibraryblogs.pbworks.com/w/page/7262285/FrontPage it can be noticed quite an extensive list of blogs that concern libraries and/or librarians. This list strengthens the importance of its use however there is quite a big number of them inactive. The journal nature of a blog requires constant updates and it seems that the current tendency is to use the social networking websites instead. Blogs can be still of great use for librarians between themselves, where professional knowledge can be shared and improved.
A wiki can be used by libraries in order to promote interaction between staff and users, users can pose their questions, give some feedback and/or information that librarians will answer. This exchange of information is carefully archived and registered in order to be used for future reference. However it has to be regarded more as a resource repository rather than for research itself. There is a big space left for inaccurate information being added all the time, for that reason reliability is compromised.
The underlying idea of a wiki is in the simplicity of use, making it a flexible tool that promotes participation, improves referencing and customer service. It can also be used by librarians who look for practice guidelines, policies, for training and project management purposes. (Sodt and Summey, 2009)
In sum “Blogs are new forms of publication, and wikis new forms of group study rooms.” (Maness, 2006, p. 142)
The Hämeenlinna Public Library in Finland is an example of a successful employment of these tools and it gets a substantial support from the Finish government as part of their Web 2.0 program.
This library offers blogs often maintained, suggested reading lists, virtual tours, a wiki with a cultural aim providing information about local history and traditions and all sorts of multimedia available:
Despite their drawbacks both wikis and blogs can be good additions to the existing information services of a library, permitting users to leave comments, update/correct information and sharing content.
RSS links (Real Simple Syndication) form a feed in XML format which can be subscribed to. When a particular piece of information is posted on a library web page/blog, users can have access to it by this link .Instead of having to check the page constantly they receive separately the updates that can be from there redistributed and even seen offline.
The bookshop where I currently work uses such a feed in our blog:
Most recently a new form of micro blogging came forth with Twitter almost any library nowadays has its own twitter account. It almost serves the purpose of instant messaging as it is used by many librarians as a communication tool between other libraries. A range of options is allowed by this micro application, information professionals can even share links of common interest. For instance, the subject librarian for the Library Science course at City University uses Twitter for that same purpose between peers and users:
Furthermore a number of social networking websites have been allowing people, organizations, companies and institutions to share information on various levels. A profile can be created where pictures, documents, music, video clips are downloaded; blogs can be posted; emails can be sent and instant messaging is possible. They have been contributing to the development of an increasing number of online communities.
Libraries have been adopting these social networks to form either work intent groups or for the general user’s common interest. Building their own page and publishing it using Facebook applications for instance will make it more easily accessible. Nowadays Facebook phenomena has grown to an extent that, together with Twitter, it’s added in almost all libraries websites though a “Follow” button with the same principle of getting the most updated and immediate information about the library services, new publications or events. Nevertheless having a good number of followers does not necessarily imply good levels of interactivity or any other sort of participation.
Live streaming videos or other media format can also serve as guidance to use the information services available, as training or as to publicize events.
Keystone to Library 2.0 concept is the management of the user’s engagement in building a better information delivery service. A tool to collect this ‘wisdom of crowds’ is tagging. Describing data (metadata) and tag a particular book, users can recommend, review and catalogue their own collection i.e. www.librarything.com.
The same principle can be applied to patrons where they can participate in tagging the library catalogue for instance. Creating information about information is what libraries have always excelled at: through selecting, cataloguing and creating ontologies. On that account information when searched is easily accessible and identifiable. Online tagging is nowadays a common and easy task for users to make their content/data visible: on websites like Flickr photos can be tagged by anyone who can describe them as they wish. This freedom on cataloguing content can obviously compromise accuracy. Nevertheless cloud tagging is a good and easy form of data visualization. The main library catalogue at City University allows any user to tag a book or when searching for a particular title cloud tagging can actually help find more resources related to the title in question.
Cloud tags are formed with the terms that occur more frequently in a particular document positioned in the centre and sometimes with increased font. While folksonomies work more like a form of social bookmarking.
Instant messaging was another tool embraced by many libraries with the sole aim of communicating with its users. This virtual reference service can be therefore executed without requiring the patron’s presence in the library and the real time advantage improves the answer effectiveness. Skype, gtalk and other software adds the possibility of video to the instant messaging. Ideal to reach out for students and their queries, to support their study and research it proved, however, difficult to monitor so many IM program options.
Another communication-end technology is the podcast “(or non-streamed webcast) (...) a series of digital media files (either audio or video) that are released episodically and often downloaded through RSS feed.” (Aqil, 2011, p. 398) With the help of open source software such as Audacity anyone can easily create a podcast. Libraries have been using it quite skilfully either for advertisement purposes, audio guided library tours or instructions for the available services.
Mashups are web based applications that assemble several levels of services or data in one service using RSS and AJAX technologies. There is no need to know programming languages in order to form a mashup. Libraries can create a mashup by combining some technologies or services in a new service page.
As Maness proposed Library 2.0 can in fact be a big conceptual mashup of web 2.0 tools adapted to library services. (Maness, 2006)
3. Feasibilities
What sort of impact has the handling of these tools to information professionals? Does this mean an increase on workload? How can staff cope with the constant updating, messaging, blogging, twitting together with their usual tasks?
In fact, there are human resources limitations when taking web 2.0 tools to libraries. The philosophies behind Library 2.0 are not only the technologies carried by Web 2.0 but above all the people they consider, the community of users.
Although it is possible to grasp the scope of advantages brought from this new library era, its implementation has to be regarded as a process. A framework based on the user, improvements on services, openness to access and participation resulted in developments especially favourable for academic backgrounds. Distance learning in academic libraries benefited highly with the use of Web 2.0.
More than the initial focus on users in libraries it has to be pointed out the necessary focus on the librarians as professionals. Web 2.0 applied to libraries have developed better library intranets but above all it has improved the information professional’s efficiency. By sharing knowledge among peers, surveying users and interacting with social media makes them aware of the constant needs of adaptation.
4. Technologies vs. communities
“Creating successful online collaborative communities isn’t necessarily easy- or always necessary. Just because you can create an “online” dimension of community doesn’t mean that you should. Technology should be a supporting player in any collaboration effort, not the driver”. (Fichter, 2005, p. 48)
For a library more important than the use of technologies in bringing communities to interact should be the focus on the services provided and the quality of the information delivered. Rather than just making use of social media tools for some superficial purposes, libraries should consider first the need for core procedures and integrated services. Many libraries, especially academic ones, have already undergone these core procedures in integrating web 2.0 tools in their services and quite successfully so.
However with the fast developments, the rise of importance of mobile devices, APIS and mashups for web 2.0 in libraries is still a western reality (Aqil, Ahmad and Siddique, 2011). Web 2.0 technologies can be great facilitators but when there is a lack of conditions for them to be used, libraries can still manage to perform and reach out for communities. Community awareness is something that libraries have been long trained on.
A case success from the use of social media tools in creating a community took place in my workplace. When it was still a project about to open, over a year ago it had already a web page with a blog, RSS feeds, Facebook page and Twitter account: http://www.woolfsonandtay.com/ By using these tools we were able to recommend books, divulge our events and workshops, get feedback from customers and show our services. Our success and community recognition without these technologies would have never been possible in such a short period of time.
With many possibilities yet to come, how web 2.0 might evolve and bring more challenging tools. It is the duty of information providers to be ready for that evolution and to try to innovate wisely.
References
Anderson, C. (2006) The Long Tail: How Endless Choice is Creating Unlimited Demand. London: Random House Business Books
Anttiroiko, A. and Savolainen, R. (2011) Towards Library 2.0: The Adoption of Web 2.0 Technologies in Public Libraries. International Journal of Libraries and Information Services, 61, pp. 87 – 99.
Aqil, M. , Ahmad, P. and Siddique (2011) Web 2.0 and Libraries: Facts or Myths. Journal of Library and Information Technology, 31(5), pp. 395 -400
Bath Spa University, (2011) Library blog. (blog) available at: http://libraryblog.co.uk/ (visited 30th November 2011).
Brophy, P. (2007) The Library in the 21st Century. 2nd ed. London: Facet Publishing.
Butterworth, R. (2011) Lecture 5, Web 2.0 – Because all your friends live inside your computer. London: City University.
Butterworth, R. (2011) Lecture 6, Web Services and APIs. London: City University.
Casey, M. (2011), Revisiting Participatory Service in Trying Times. (blog), (23/10/2011) available at: http://www.michaelecasey.com/ (visited 25th November 2011).
City University Library, (2011) Libguides, Information Science. (27/09/2011) available at: http://libguides.city.ac.uk/informationscience (visited 2nd December 2011).
City University Library, (2011) Encore. (Library catalogue reference) available at: http://encore.city.ac.uk/iii/encore/record/C%7CRb1397377%7CSweb+2.0%7CP0%2C14%7COrightresult%7CX4?lang=eng&suite=pearl (visited 30th November 2011).
Fichter, D. (2005) The Many Forms of E-Collaboration: Blogs, Wikis, Portal, Groupware, Discussion Boards, and Instant Messaging. Online, 29(4), pp. 48-50.
Kroski, E. (2006) Infotangle . (blog), (09/04/2007) available at: http://infotangle.blogsome.com/2006/01/13/the-hype-and-the-hullabaloo-of-web-20/ (visited 30th November 2011).
Library Thing, (2011) Library Thing. available at: www.librarything.com (visited 2nd December 2011).
Maness, J. (2006) Library 2.0: The next generation of Web-based library services. Logos, 17(3), pp. 139-145.
Morville, P. and Rosenfeld, L., (2007) Information Architecture for the World Wide Web. 3rd ed. Cambridge: O’Reilly.
Pbworks,(2011)UK Library Blogs.(Blog) available at: http://uklibraryblogs.pbworks.com/w/page/7262285/FrontPage (visited 30th November 2011).
O’Reilly, T. (2005) What is Web 2.0: Design Patterns and Business Models for the Next Generation of Software. (O’Reilly Media Inc.) available at: http://oreilly.com/web2/archive/what-is-web-20.html (visited 25th November 2011).
O’Reilly, T. (2005) Web 2.0: Compact Definition? (O’Reilly Media Inc.) available at: http://radar.oreilly.com/archives/2005/10/web-20-compact-definition.html (visited 25th November 2011).
Scottish Library and Information Council, (2009) Hämeenlinna City Library 2.0. (slide share website) available at: http://www.slideshare.net/scottishlibraries/hmeenlinna-city-library-20 (visited 2nd December).
Sodt, J. And Summey, T. (2009) Beyond the Library’s Walls: Using Library 2.0 Tools to Reach Out to All Users. Journal of Library Administration, 49, pp. 97-109.
Woolfson and Tay, (2001) Woolfson & Tay Bookshop blog. (blog), (20/12/2011) available at: http://www.woolfsonandtay.com/blog.html (visited 7th December).
Woolfson and Tay, (2001) Woolfson & Tay Bookshop. (bookshop page), (20/12/2011) available at: http://www.woolfsonandtay.com/blog.html (visited 7th December).
