Paul Anderson writes a cautionary editorial on the need for theoretical analysis in order for libraries to properly and fully exploit the value of changes to technology exemplified in “Web 2.0”.
Paul Anderson has a professional interest in the development of standards and protocols within computer science – his undergraduate degree is in computer science and he is currently the Technical Editor of JISC Technology and Standards Watch. It is from this perspective that he writes about the need for the library sector to develop theories and analysis around the term ‘Library 2.0’.
In the editorial, Anderson discusses the term Web 2. 0 and its origin in 2004 as a somewhat nebulous term to encapsulate the activities surrounding the Web after the dot.com bust. From this beginning ideas surrounding the characteristics of Web 2.0 have developed, and Anderson proposed a three-pronged framework which could be used to analyse Web 2.0 (Anderson 2007):
1) The visible or obvious aspects of Web 2.0 which have captured the imagination of all – those aspects that allow for user generated content and changed social connections, such as wikis, blogs, social networking applications.
Enthusiasm for Web 2.0 does seem to be based around this first part of Anderson’s framework – for example, the State Library of NSW runs an online learning course entitled Learning 2.0 – in reference to Web 2.0 - that concentrates entirely on the visible aspects of Web 2.0 – such as blogs and microblogs, tagging and mashups (http://nswpubliclibrarieslearning2.blogspot.com/).
2) The characteristics of Web 2.0 developments outlined by O’Reilly (2005). These characteristics help define Web 2.0 and exploit the potential benefits of it. The characteristics are:
Individual production and user generated content
Individuals create content, rather than being the passive recipients of it. An example is the microblogging via Twitter that reported on the Iranian elections in 2009.
Harnessing the power of the crowd
This refers to collaboration and information-sharing between individuals made possible by the Internet, and also the rise of communities around this shared information. An example is vinylfanatics.com (http://vinylfanatics.com/forum/) which includes reviews, opinion pieces, a forum and advertisements.
Data on an epic scale
A huge amount of data is now available online which is then aggregated by organizations to give them a competitive advantage – and those services which make vast amounts of information easily accessible will be utilised the most. An example is Australian Property Monitors http://apm.com.au/ which aggregates information concerning real estate.
Architecture of participation
Web 2.0 services are designed for ease of use, and to improve and enable mass participation. In addition, the service improves with use, which is a function of the architecture of the service. So, for example Google can prompt search terms to users based on that user’s previous preferences, as well as other users’ search preferences.
Network effects
As more people join a service, the value of the network increases for existing users. For example, when Facebook only had two members, the value was fairly limited. As each person joins, the value of the network increases.
Openness
Web 2.0 is driven by open source software, which is modified on an ongoing basis. It works with freely accessible data. The best known is Linux, but there are many others – such as those listed on the ICT website: http://www.ictregulationtoolkit.org/en/PracticeNote.3182.html
3) The third corner is the standards and technologies that are developing via the World Wide Web Consortium (http://www.w3.org/Consortium/) which allow technical development that can be widely utilised according to shared standards.
Anderson posits two roles for librarians in the new era of Web 2.0 – the first, a somewhat feeble reference to librarians’ public sector ethos as a chief contribution in building technologies of the future – as opposed to the contribution of technical skills which many librarians possess. The second role, once a theoretical analysis of the term Library 2.0 has been established, would allow libraries to ‘develop robust critical faculties and evaluative practices for new, libraries-based Web 2.0 services’ (p.196).
In Anderson’s review of ‘Library 2.0’ he finds no agreed definition or analysis; it is simply a term that has been bandied about with enthusiasm. However, the editorial does not make clear why Anderson believes Library 2.0 needs to be analysed and theorised; if Web 2.0 technologies will be utilised to create a new vision of information access and community meeting, then surely the term could simply refer to a library that has embraced Web 2.0 potentialities with the theoretical underpinnings associated with Web 2.0?
Paul Anderson has a professional interest in the development of standards and protocols within computer science – his undergraduate degree is in computer science and he is currently the Technical Editor of JISC Technology and Standards Watch. It is from this perspective that he writes about the need for the library sector to develop theories and analysis around the term ‘Library 2.0’.
In the editorial, Anderson discusses the term Web 2. 0 and its origin in 2004 as a somewhat nebulous term to encapsulate the activities surrounding the Web after the dot.com bust. From this beginning ideas surrounding the characteristics of Web 2.0 have developed, and Anderson proposed a three-pronged framework which could be used to analyse Web 2.0 (Anderson 2007):
1) The visible or obvious aspects of Web 2.0 which have captured the imagination of all – those aspects that allow for user generated content and changed social connections, such as wikis, blogs, social networking applications.
Enthusiasm for Web 2.0 does seem to be based around this first part of Anderson’s framework – for example, the State Library of NSW runs an online learning course entitled Learning 2.0 – in reference to Web 2.0 - that concentrates entirely on the visible aspects of Web 2.0 – such as blogs and microblogs, tagging and mashups (http://nswpubliclibrarieslearning2.blogspot.com/).
2) The characteristics of Web 2.0 developments outlined by O’Reilly (2005). These characteristics help define Web 2.0 and exploit the potential benefits of it. The characteristics are:
Individual production and user generated content
Individuals create content, rather than being the passive recipients of it. An example is the microblogging via Twitter that reported on the Iranian elections in 2009.
Harnessing the power of the crowd
This refers to collaboration and information-sharing between individuals made possible by the Internet, and also the rise of communities around this shared information. An example is vinylfanatics.com (http://vinylfanatics.com/forum/) which includes reviews, opinion pieces, a forum and advertisements.
Data on an epic scale
A huge amount of data is now available online which is then aggregated by organizations to give them a competitive advantage – and those services which make vast amounts of information easily accessible will be utilised the most. An example is Australian Property Monitors http://apm.com.au/ which aggregates information concerning real estate.
Architecture of participation
Web 2.0 services are designed for ease of use, and to improve and enable mass participation. In addition, the service improves with use, which is a function of the architecture of the service. So, for example Google can prompt search terms to users based on that user’s previous preferences, as well as other users’ search preferences.
Network effects
As more people join a service, the value of the network increases for existing users. For example, when Facebook only had two members, the value was fairly limited. As each person joins, the value of the network increases.
Openness
Web 2.0 is driven by open source software, which is modified on an ongoing basis. It works with freely accessible data. The best known is Linux, but there are many others – such as those listed on the ICT website: http://www.ictregulationtoolkit.org/en/PracticeNote.3182.html
3) The third corner is the standards and technologies that are developing via the World Wide Web Consortium (http://www.w3.org/Consortium/) which allow technical development that can be widely utilised according to shared standards.
Anderson posits two roles for librarians in the new era of Web 2.0 – the first, a somewhat feeble reference to librarians’ public sector ethos as a chief contribution in building technologies of the future – as opposed to the contribution of technical skills which many librarians possess. The second role, once a theoretical analysis of the term Library 2.0 has been established, would allow libraries to ‘develop robust critical faculties and evaluative practices for new, libraries-based Web 2.0 services’ (p.196).
In Anderson’s review of ‘Library 2.0’ he finds no agreed definition or analysis; it is simply a term that has been bandied about with enthusiasm. However, the editorial does not make clear why Anderson believes Library 2.0 needs to be analysed and theorised; if Web 2.0 technologies will be utilised to create a new vision of information access and community meeting, then surely the term could simply refer to a library that has embraced Web 2.0 potentialities with the theoretical underpinnings associated with Web 2.0?
No comments:
Post a Comment