[Web4lib] Interesting Web/Library 2.0 data
(wasparticpationSkillsfor Library 2.0 Leaders)
Lawrence Milliken
millikel at neumann.edu
Fri May 4 16:53:28 EDT 2007
Shouldn't they be the core audience? After all they are the "largest
percentage of the population," and " they also conduct the
least amount of intensive research, are less enthusiastic about
research, and are less connected to the academic community." That is
exactly why I want to try web/library2.0 technologies, so I can try to
reach them and draw them in toward a more meaningful interaction with
the information resources of their field.
The intensive researcher may benefit from what we do for the
undergrads, or they may ignore it as irrelevant to them, either way they
are already intensive researchers and probably need fewer bells and
whistles anyway.
Larry Milliken
Reference Librarian
Neumann College Library
>>> "Mark Costa" <markrcosta at gmail.com> 5/4/2007 3:54 PM >>>
>
>
>
> 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 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
_______________________________________________
Web4lib mailing list
Web4lib at webjunction.org
http://lists.webjunction.org/web4lib/
-------------- next part --------------
BEGIN:VCARD
VERSION:2.1
X-GWTYPE:USER
FN:Lawrence Milliken
TEL;WORK:610-558-5541
ORG:Neumann College;Library
EMAIL;WORK;PREF;NGW:MILLIKEL at neumann.edu
N:Milliken;Lawrence
TITLE:Reference Librarian
ADR;DOM;WORK;PARCEL;POSTAL:;;One Neumann Dr.;Aston;PA;19014
LABEL;DOM;WORK;PARCEL;POSTAL;ENCODING=QUOTED-PRINTABLE:Lawrence Milliken=0A=
One Neumann Dr.=0A=
Aston, PA 19014
END:VCARD
More information about the Web4lib
mailing list