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

[Mark Costa]

>
>
>
> Second, I think we should also admit that the core audience of academic
> libraries -- undergraduate students -- are unlikely to find any reason to
> subscribe to RSS feeds or write reviews or tag resources unless they can
> derive a direct benefit for their research and coursework.  The utility of
> these technologies is therefore largely limited to our secondary audiences.


Why are undergraduate students the core audience? I know they generally
comprise the largest percentage of the population, but they also conduct the
least amount of intensive research, are less enthusiastic about research,
and are less connected to the academic community. (And as a preemptive
strike, I know there are a few honors undergraduates, and maybe even a few
exceptional colleges, but lets be realistic). Most major research
institutions get less than half of their revenues from tuition, so you can't
even argue that undergraduates are supporting the library with their
moeny. Why don't we focus more on the people who really need and would use
the library if it was designed well?

I am not going to disagree with you about fragmented systems. I think we are
in a no win situation there because we do not own our content. It seems that
the people we work with are intent on resisting all market trends and making
it entirely impossible for us to actually meet our customers' demands. Who
knows, maybe undergrads would get all excited about the library if we could
get the information to them more efficiently than we do now.

Third, I think we have to recognize that, until we address and fix the
> fundamental issues regarding the integration and usability of library
> system, we are further diminishing the usefulness of Web 2.0 technologies
> in academic libraries precisely because these features will remain just as
> fragmented and disconnected as our current systems.
>
>
>
> Finally, I think as a profession we have to realize that, by focusing our
> efforts on these social Web 2.0 features, we are ultimately drawing both
> our own and our vendor's resources away from efforts to address these
> fundamental access issues and similar efforts that will benefit our core
> audience.
>
>
>
> It doesn't have to be an either-or proposition -- we can both integrate
> and improve our systems and add these social Web 2.0 features.  But we
> have to focus on fixing the systems first.  There's no point in extolling
> the great sun roof and the leather seats and the expensive stereo system
> when the car is slow and breaks down all the time.
>
>
>
> --Dave
>
>
> -------------------
> David Walker
> Library Web Services Manager
> California State University
> http://xerxes.calstate.edu
>
> ________________________________
>
> From: Mark Costa [mailto:markrcosta at gmail.com]
> Sent: Thu 5/3/2007 5:15 PM
> To: Walker, David
> Cc: web4lib at webjunction.org
> Subject: Re: [Web4lib] Interesting Web/Library 2.0 data
> (wasparticpationSkillsfor Library 2.0 Leaders)
>
>
> Can we say that for the next few years, the biggest thing we have to focus
> on is modularizing our content, and getting it integrated into other
> people's content? Can we honestly admit that we will not be the "primary"
> information destination for most people, but instead say that we can add
> value by helping you create an information rich environment? I think we can
> do that by leveraging technologies to make our resources open for "cherry
> picking".
>
> The biggest challenge for us at that time will be to aggregate data to
> justify what we do, instead of just getting people to use our services.
>
> -mc
>
>
> On 5/3/07, Walker, David <dwalker at calstate.edu> wrote:
>
>        I think the largest barrier we face in implementing the ideas of
> 'Library 2.0' is that libraries have never really solved *the* fundamental
> problem from the days of 'Library 1.0' -- namely, integration.
>
>        Getting your data out to other places and allowing people to
> contribute data back is all well and good.  I'm all for it.
>
>        But if your Library is offering RSS feeds and tagging and other
> social features among a half-dozen vendor-developed systems and hundreds of
> remotely hosted databases -- none of which know anything about each other or
> even operate in the same way -- then we've greatly diminished the utility of
> these features.  Who wants to go hunting around for RSS feeds or tagging
> records in a dozen different library systems?  Would it not be better to
> have all of that in one system?
>
>        I think Library / Learning Management System integration is
> probably *the* most important thing academic libraries should be working
> on.  But, again, before we do that, we need to get all of our library
> systems integrated together, otherwise we just end up recreating the
> distributed, disconnected mess of the library in a new space.
>
>        'Library 2.0' is, as far as I can tell, also about opening systems
> up, and I think that is ultimately what is going to drive the integration
> I'm talking about. The problem, though, is that a lot of our vendors are now
> rushing to add tagging and RSS feeds and other features to their current
> systems, and not focusing on developing good APIs.  How many ILS systems and
> aggregator sites are still only accessible via Z39.50?
>
>        The Library community is driving this by focusing on social
> features *before* focusing on integration.  Layering Web 2.0 over a
> fragmented, disconnected systems architecture perpetuates our
> problems.  Let's focus on integration first, demanding that our vendors
> create good, open APIs.  That will make everything else we want to do much,
> much easier -- even the old fashioned things of 'Library 1.0'.
>
>        --Dave
>
>        -------------------
>        David Walker
>        Library Web Services Manager
>        California State University
>        http://xerxes.calstate.edu
>
>        ________________________________
>
>        From: web4lib-bounces at webjunction.org on behalf of Rob Amend
>        Sent: Thu 5/3/2007 10:17 AM
>        To: web4lib at webjunction.org
>        Subject: Re: [Web4lib] Interesting Web/Library 2.0 data
> (wasparticpationSkillsfor Library 2.0 Leaders)
>
>
>
>        Exactly!  Libraries need to push information to those who want/need
> it, not
>        wait for patrons to approach our institutional sites.
>
>        On 5/3/07, Hutchens, Chad <chutchens at montana.edu> wrote:
>        >
>        > Getting our content elsewhere in our users' daily routines
> without forcing
>        > them to go to our library websites....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
>        >
>        >
>        >
>        >
>        >
>        >
>        > Rob Amend
>        > Reference Librarian
>        > rob.amend at gmail.com
>        > reftechrob.blogspot.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/
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> Mark R. Costa, MLS
>
> "The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable man
> persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress
> depends on the unreasonable man."
> --- George Bernard Shaw
>



-- 
Mark R. Costa, MLS

"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable man
persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress
depends on the unreasonable man."
--- George Bernard Shaw