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

[Hutchens, Chad]

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/