[Web4lib] Interesting Web/Library 2.0 data (wasparticpationSkillsfor Library 2.0 Leaders)

[Pons, Lisa (ponslm)]

In general, I would have to agree that I don't think our users want to
contribute content. However, some might-so eventually it becomes a
cost-benefit scenario.

I wonder also, how many of us have used Amazon's tagging features? I get
stuff from Amazon all the time, but I've never used it...


I do think the xml model presented in a previous post, and pushed out to
faculty and students where they need it, is indeed the way to go.

Lisa Pons-Haitz

> -----Original Message-----
> From: web4lib-bounces at webjunction.org 
> [mailto:web4lib-bounces at webjunction.org] On Behalf Of Hutchens, Chad
> Sent: Thursday, May 03, 2007 12:53 PM
> To: kgs at bluehighways.com; web4lib at webjunction.org
> Subject: RE: [Web4lib] Interesting Web/Library 2.0 data 
> (wasparticpationSkillsfor Library 2.0 Leaders)
> 
> While I would agree that counting the site as a destination 
> is very dated, what strikes me about these data is that users 
> aren't actually generating content at the rate which people 
> thought they would.  That critical mass and flood of user 
> generated content just hasn't happened.   
> 
> The reason that strikes me is because we're spending massive 
> amounts of time and effort (not only in libraries, but in the 
> literature and at conferences) on convincing people that 
> Library 2.0 will ensure that our users can participate and 
> contribute their own content and that it's going to lead to a 
> revolution in library services.  I'm just not convinced that 
> our average user cares that much about our content...other 
> content out on the web (personal interest content), sure, but 
> not our content, not enough to comment on it or tag it.  
> (They want the content yes...I'm not arguing about that).  
> Think about it, we're telling ILS vendors (and open ILS 
> vendors) that user tagging is a very important feature to 
> implement.  My question is, is it that important?  Is there 
> something else that's more important?  Do users care enough 
> about our OPAC content to tag it themselves?  Sure some will, 
> but is it important enough that your everyday average user 
> will care and dive in?  Should we spend the money to 
> implement a feature that only 5% to 10% of our patrons will 
> use?  I think these questions need to be asked (and answered) 
> before we launch wholesale into expensive additions (either 
> in time or money) to our OPACs (which in the college 
> environment, just aren't as important as they used to be).    
> 
> One example I'd point to is Chad Boeninger's BizWiki 
> (http://www.library.ohiou.edu/subjects/bizwiki/index.php) at 
> Ohio U.  It's a great resource to be sure and it gets a lot 
> of visits, but if you look at the change log, only the author 
> is editing it and contributing to it.  It's a great platform, 
> it's searchable (which is a big strength), and it's easy to 
> update (another plus), but the community aspect of it is 
> absent.  I don't want that to be interpretted as a stab 
> against its author (I think the use of a wiki as a Content 
> Management System is a great idea in fact)...I'm just using 
> it as an example of a large and oft-visited social-software 
> based library service that people obviously use, but don't 
> care enough to contribute to themselves.  It's worked well in 
> the case of Amazon, I can't argue against that, but it is a 
> different environment.  Just food for thought.
> 
> Also in response to this paragraph which I can't seem to 
> figure out who wrote (apologies)
> 
> "What if librarians stopped focusing on developing their own 
> site, but instead found ways to contribute content to other 
> people's sites in their respective communities? We could 
> develop a modular site, say using xml, and then work with 
> others to incorporate what we have into their sites. Course 
> sites come to mind. Instead of trying to get people to 
> constantly link to our site, focus more on to getting in to 
> theirs. I know some libraries do this to some extent, but it 
> never seems to be the main push. Am I correct in this assumption?"
> 
> I think this is more of what we need to focus on.  Getting 
> our content elsewhere in our users' daily routines without 
> forcing them to go to our library websites.  In the case of 
> college courses, I think you've hit the nail right on the 
> head!  I don't necessarilly think librarians will be creating 
> real content (after all, if we were, we wouldn't purchase and 
> license the content we do), but getting those links into 
> other systems seems to be a well-aimed goal.  Relying on 
> people to come through the library website as a gateway is a 
> very dated idea to be sure.  And I do think that new 
> technologies can be the vehicle that drives that change.  XML 
> is perhaps the most promising of them all.
> 
> Respectfully,
> 
> Chad Hutchens
> E-Resources Librarian
> Montana State University
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: web4lib-bounces at webjunction.org on behalf of K.G. Schneider
> Sent: Thu 5/3/2007 6:29 AM
> To: web4lib at webjunction.org
> Subject: RE: [Web4lib] Interesting Web/Library 2.0 data 
> (wasparticpationSkills for Library 2.0 Leaders)
>  
> > I would have to say that for Youtube and Flickr, they generate a 
> > tremendous number of visits because people can imbed the 
> image/video 
> > on another site.
> > That's a good way to drive non-contributory traffic to a 
> site and skew 
> > the ratio.
> 
> This isn't "non-contributory traffic" that "skew[s] the 
> ratio," since a major component of Web 2.0 theory/practice is 
> the idea that content is portable/remixable. If I post a 
> YouTube video to my site and people watch it, they are 
> participating in YouTube (and likely to visit the site themselves). 
> 
> The idea that the site is the destination is very 1.0. 
> 
> K.G. Schneider
> kgs at bluehighways.com
> http://freerangelibrarian.com
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Web4lib mailing list
> Web4lib at webjunction.org
> http://lists.webjunction.org/web4lib/
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Web4lib mailing list
> Web4lib at webjunction.org
> http://lists.webjunction.org/web4lib/
>