Friday, February 27, 2009

The Public Library, Web 2.0 and Library 2.0

First, some background. When I first came to this program a few years ago, a lot of people were buzzing about "Web 2.0" and I had no idea what it truly was, I honestly thought it was some sort of ultra-fancy internet that I would have to pay more money a month to get. After some readings, I have a better sense of what it is, and that I've been using it for awhile. Traditionally, web pages were static. You went to a page, you read the information on the page, you might even click on some of the links that it had or maybe you emailed the webmaster. Web 2.0 is the is idea beyond the static web page with only one contributor. Its many people contributing information to a source, causing the source to continuously transform. Its egalitarian in nature, everybody who has an opinion can voice it, and other can read it or not. Examples are Facebook, MySpace, the comments and reviews section on Amazon, wikis, blogs, or any sort of forum where the readers can also become the authors.

The term "Library 2.0" was originally coined by blogger and now book author Michael Casey, he defines it as this:

The heart of Library 2.0 is user-centered change. It is a model for library service that encourages constant and purposeful change, inviting user participation in the creation of both the physical and the virtual services they want, supported by consistently evaluating services. It also attempts to reach new users and better serve current ones through improved customer-driven offerings. (Casey & Savastinuk)

This is huge for public libraries. People generally feel more in touch with a thing that they have helped to create. If patrons were to feel like they were part of a community within the library that listened to their concerns and made choices based on them, they might be more inclined to use the library. For example, if a library is considering establishing an area in the building for young adult literature and young adult-themed activities, those same young adults would be more inclined to use them. The key factor is making the library "customer driven" (Casey & Savastinuk). Many businesses have done well financially because they have made it a priority to put the customer first, the public library should be thinking in the same vein. But by involving the customers in the planning itself, the library can also help its customer relations.

But there are some downsides to this. Andrew Keen has given some talks on how Web 2.0 is not really all that great. He argues that if anyone can put anything up on the internet on any subject, misinformation will spread, and true experts will get lost in the mix (Tenopir). While this is a concern, there are ways to deal with it. Accessing Wikipedia is nice, but not many people know they shouldn't source it as a reliable source. But we as librarians can use the opportunity as a way of educating people in how to use Wikipedia and to get the most correct information out of it. The same could be said of the interactive library. Not everything will be great, I'm sure librarians will still have to spend time editing and weeding through the inappropriate content on their library's facebook pages, but it doesn't mean that the entire idea is invalid.

Personally, I love the idea that Casey & Savastinuk had of setting up reviews within the catalog that patrons could comment on. What a great way to help people better narrow down what they're looking for. Amazon reviews have helped me out in the past, I don't see why the same idea couldn't be applied in a public library. Also, there's the chance that people might take the review section and make it their own, like some of the reviewers on amazon: http://tinyurl.com/adzera or http://tinyurl.com/c6modf



Casey, Michael E. & Savastinuk, Laura C. (2006). Library 2.0. Library Journal, 131, no 14, 40-42.
Tenopir, Carol. (2007). Web 2.0: Our Cultural Downfall? Library Journal, 132, no 20, 36.

8 comments:

LHR said...

“But there are some downsides to this. Andrew Keen has given some talks on how Web 2.0 is not really all that great.”
Good or bad everything has its champions and detractors. My favorite attack on Web 2.0 to date is from the Weekly Standard
It's eerily similar to Marx's seductive promise about individual self-realization in his German Ideology:
Whereas in communist society, where nobody has one exclusive sphere of activity but each can become accomplished in any branch he wishes, society regulates the general production and thus makes it possible for me to do one thing today and another tomorrow, to hunt in the morning, fish in the afternoon, rear cattle in the evening, criticise after dinner, just as I have a mind, without ever becoming hunter, fisherman, shepherd or critic.
Just as Marx seduced a generation of European idealists with his fantasy of self-realization in a communist utopia, so the Web 2.0 cult of creative self-realization has seduced everyone in Silicon Valley.
I don’t know is it me or does that seem a little bit extreme?
Web 2.0 is essentially a way of accessing information. It’s free-based, user-friendly and there for anyone to use, it is a way of bringing the internet back to the people.(how Marxist of me). Just like anything on the web, or in a newspaper or on television the information isn’t gospel. If you come across something that sounds interesting you have to do more research on the subject, come to your conclusion from more than one angle.

“Personally, I love the idea that Casey & Savastinuk had of setting up reviews within the catalog that patrons could comment on. What a great way to help people better narrow down what they're looking for. Amazon reviews have helped me out in the past, I don't see why the same idea couldn't be applied in a public library.”
Social bookmarking is a web 2.0 technology that does exactly that. You may have heard of delicious.com (formerly del.icio.us), citeulike, and twitter which are internet based bookmarking services that allow you to network your tags. Users who designate their bookmarks as public allow anyone to access their bookmarks via the tags they have assigned to the bookmark. Actually, Pen States academic library has it’s own bookmarking application called Penntags.

Keen, Andrew.(2006) Web 2.0 Retrieved February 28, 2009 from WeeklyStandard.com Website: http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/006/714fjczq.asp

Jessica Carmody said...

Yeah, comparing Web 2.0 to Marxism is definitely extreme. Web 2.0 is at most a philosophy to disseminating information, and at the very least, one in a variety of tools. I highly doubt it will overthrow any Eastern Block monarcies. And like communism, if Web 2.0 really doesn't work for libraries, they'll figure that out on their own, and the concept will eventually be phased out.

Kara DeMott said...

Lynn, those are some interesting points I hadn't thought of. It is a little scary how the internet makes everyone an "expert." At the same time, most people would describe themselves as an expert in at least one area, why not share your knowledge?

Megan said...

I think the comparison to Marx is valid, or at least creative. (Like Freud, I think Marx's work should be neither discounted nor accepted in its entirety.) If previously a handful of people were a particularly good photographers, but Web 2.0 creates a culture in which everyone is expected to be a photographer, film director, personal blogger, and researcher, just the raw math of it sort of demands that most people will be mediocre at these things.

That said, Web 2.0 is still super cool.

Anonymous said...

Again, I love the idea of patron driven. I think you are right, people do take more pride and ownership in things they help create. I remember I had to write a paper on the Alamo in my undergrad. When I was researching the topic I didn't enjoy it all that much, but when I was done with the paper and went to the Alamo, I was so excited and proud of my knowledge. I think this could be used in libraries. You don't have to give paper assignments, but if you give a teen a paint brush or let them express their desires for projects, I think the effect would be the same.

Kara DeMott said...

Megan, I agree that there is so much mediocre information on the web. Maybe the web of the future will find better ways to weed out redundant or false information.

Mike Sullivan said...

I'm a Web 2.0 newbie too. (or should I say 2.0?) I've never visited any of the social networking sites, but do read reviews at Amazon and other sites and visit Wikipedia just to get my bearings. But I do think that in many ways, that's the way we're heading. The Era of Me 1.0 is upon us, for better or worse.
It is often very difficult or expensive to get patron input. So wikis, blogs, and any technologies that promote patron interaction should be welcomed as a godsend for libraries. Patron-generated reviews and especially enlisting elusive teen market contributions are wonderful starting points. (You watch...when I bring these up this week someone will let me know that we already do that! I do know we have a blog, but don't ask me how to access it.)

eric said...

Over Christmas, my brother-in-law, who works for UofM's grad library, were discussing the new system of tagging that UofM had put in place for their graduate records. We decided to search the tags, and came up with about nine items tagged "book" and a couple more tagged "knife project." That was it. We found it funny and informative... I've heard the term "creepy treehouse" to describe this phenomenon: something that users can tell right away is unnatural and not along their normal pathway.

Web 2.0 is just a buzzword, but Facebook is great, and should definitely be the model for Blackboard replacement. 2.0 tools are nice when they work. Pragmatism is definitely in order.