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

Thu May 3 15:56:58 EDT 2007

There are so many good points and great ideas that it's hard to find a
good place to start.

I think the tools and technologies that Web 2.0 or Library 2.0 offers
can benefit both parties, librarians and users, but in different ways.

I sense that "Web 2.0" tools and technologies, such as XML (or its RSS
incarnation) can help libraries push content to users, be it licensed
content or in-house content. Someone made a comment here or perhaps in
another thread about helping a patron keep tabs on news at Guantanamo
Bay using Google News and its RSS feed. We are aware of these
resources and the RSS delivery method, and when we share this with
users, they immediately see its value. In general, the information
professional's role remains the same--serve and satisfy user
needs--but these new tools make the steps to fulfilling that role a
lot more empowering.

>From the user's perspective, "Web 2.0" tools and technologies enable
them to consume content more easily, that is, access the information
when he or she wants it and how. I suspect there will always be a
central library web presence, but perhaps what appears on those pages,
or how the content on those pages is used, will be determined more by
users. We provide a framework, we provide access, we provide the
expertise - but the user will be the one to shape and manipulate the
whole.

As for users creating content, I believe Web 2.0 certainly offers
ample opportunity to create content. Popular websites such as Youtube
or ustream.tv demonstrate this. But whether this kind of content would
be of value to the library or university community? Not sure. I
suspect there could be some potential with users tagging materials,
the way the delicious user community tags websites. But then again, to
be honest, I haven't really conducted a search by searching tags.
Perhaps tagging isn't mature enough yet.

In any case, it is a very interesting period. It wasn't very long ago
when I was a student in university. It was 1996. Our library had dumb
terminals. No World Wide Web. When I conducted research, I sat in
front of those amber-coloured screens running searches, finding things
by a set methodology or (more often than) serendipity. Netscape
Navigator was just coming onto the scene. Nowadays there are tons more
tools and information. And now here comes "Web 2.0."

These discussions--and the willingness to give ideas a shot--are the
best ways to tackle these emerging issues.

David
Archivist, Web Services
IMF Archives

On 5/3/07, Pons, Lisa (ponslm) <PONSLM at ucmail.uc.edu> wrote:
> 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/
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Web4lib mailing list
> Web4lib at webjunction.org
> http://lists.webjunction.org/web4lib/
>