By Bethany
Web 2.0 uses the internet as a collaborative tool. While most of the time we broadcast our message to the world with little regard for or ability to hear feedback from our audience, Web 2.0 actively encourages and rewards participation and response from our audience. What fun is Facebook if no one responds to your status update? All that liking, commenting, and posting is Web 2.0 in action. But that's not the only way Web 2.0 functions. For other ways view this short video Web 2.0 compared to Web 1.0:
While not everything you use on the Internet is Web 2.0-based, you might be surprised at how many Web 2.0 tools you use. A basic rule of thumb is that when you’re using the internet, through social networking sites, wikis, blogs, or other streams to have a conversation with someone else or otherwise share information that’s Web 2.0. Facebook, Twitter, Wikipedia, and Youtube are all really popular examples of Web 2.0 in action. They exist because people share information back and forth.
While I find the conversation model most useful in describing Web 2.0, it’s more about collaboration intentional and unintentional. The Internet acts as a great net catching all the information people are sharing everyday. Yes, a lot of that happens in conversation, but even the information you save for personal use like bookmarks or map routes can be gathered with similar data from other people to make something great. Social bookmarking, sites such as Diigo, Delicious, or Stumble Upon, allows a user to share interesting websites, to tag them for personal (and public) reference later on, and to find the most popular links on the site at any given time. All the apps that ask you to share your location, upload your scores to a general server, or are made better when you share information are aspects of Web 2.0. Even the customer reviews you read or post on Amazon or the App Store came about through the implementation of Web 2.0 practices.
Web 2.0 is all over the internet and you probably already use it without thinking about it. However, when you intentionally harness the power of collaboration through Web 2.0, you can do great things. You can discover new trends and avenues for exploration. You can connect with people in ways you never thought possible. And you can create a community. All things libraries like to do in our quest to serve the public.
For more information about the role Web 2.0 can play in libraries, check out our blog post “What defines a library presence on the internet?”
For more information:
Abram, S. (2006). Web 2.0, library 2.0, and librarian 2.0: Preparing for the 2.0 world. SirsiDynix OneSource 2(1). Retrieved from: http://www.imakenews.com/sirsi/e_article000505688.cfm
Dunn, J. (May 15, 2012). 100 web 2.0 tools every teacher should know about. Retrieved from: http://edudemic.com/2012/05/best-web-tools-slides/
Stephens, M. (2006). Web 2.0 and Libraries: Best Practices for Social Software. Library Technology Reports, 42(4), 6-68.
Tuesday, May 22, 2012
FAQ: Do libraries face extinction?
 |
| Jeffrey Koterba Retrieved May 19, 2012 |
“I predict that print books will disappear in my lifetime. Once that happens, why would anyone need a library?” 30-year-old rental car agent
I met him on my way to a library conference. I needed a rental car; when I told him where I was going, he immediately attempted to engage in a debate about the future of libraries. His real question was, “if libraries exist only to provide print copies of books, and print books disappear, will we need libraries any more?”
Will print books disappear? I don’t think so. Print books as we know them today were a marvelous improvement over the old writing technologies of clay tablets, scrolls, and folios. The version we use today is incredibly versatile. As Patt Morrison’s eloquently explained in a recent Los Angeles Times essay, “paper and parchment are still around, still legible, still "working" multiple centuries later. You don't need to wait for the page to load. All the technology it needs to work is the human eye. No password, no batteries required. A book doesn't stop working when it's dropped. You can read it on the tarmac even after the command to turn off all electronics. It isn't ruined when it gets wet (the salvage operation after the 1986 Central Library fire proved that, and how many books have I dropped in the bath water and dried them out?). The only grave threat to a book is a flame, accidental or deliberate. Books are immensely, symbolically, mystically powerful; the fact that fearful humans ritually burn them, the way they once burned witches, attests to it. No book, someone said, has the power of a burned book.”
It’s true that Americans in growing numbers are succumbing to the lure of e-readers, and that market will grow as their prices decline. But print and electronic formats will probably exist side-by-side for decades. For instance, a survey of California registered voters conducted by the Los Angeles Times discovered that 90% of e-reader owners continue to read print books, and over 50% of e-reader owners stated that they mostly read traditional books--and some confessed to never using their electronic books at all!
But what if the print book does become extinct? Will libraries follow them into extinction? Not likely. Libraries and librarians have adapted to new technologies for centuries. The ease and scope of access to information via the Internet and the World Wide Web has already eliminated the librarian’s monopoly on information. Yet libraries are still with us.
Librarians were among the first to foresee and welcome these innovations. Visit your local library’s web site, and you will see an interactive portal to its resources. And whether virtual or brick-and-mortar spaces, libraries are public squares, inviting and safe, places where community happens among people of all ages.
As long as librarians and libraries take the initiative to embrace both old and new technologies, their patrons will turn to them for guidance to navigate the exciting but overwhelming sea of information available in the online world.
For a librarian’s take on Web 2.0 and the library, see Steven Bell - Future of Librarians Interview
For a non-librarian perspective on the future of libraries, see Future Libraries: Nerve Center of the Community
For the effect of e-books on the role of the library, listen to
References:
Anton, Mike. "USC DORNSIFE/TIMES POLL; E-reader owners still favor printed books." Los Angeles Times. (April 15, 2012 Sunday ): Part A; Pg. 1.
Borgman, Christine L. From Gutenberg to the Global Information Infrastructure: Access to Information in the Networked World. Cambridge: The MIT Press, 2000.
Caniono, William T. “Academic Library Design: A Commons or an Athenaeum?”
Library Philosophy and Practice (September 2010).
Frey, Thomas. “Future Libraries: Nerve Center of the Community.” (February 22, 2009). http://www.futuristspeaker.com/2009/02/future-libraries-nerve-center-of-the-community/
“Interview with Stephen Bell on the Future of Librarians.” College Online.
http://www.collegeonline.org/library/librarians-online/steven-bell.html
Morrison, Patt. "Reading, no batteries required." Los Angeles Times. (April 22, 2012 Sunday): Part A; Pg. 27.
Neary, Lynn. “The Future of the Library in the E-Book Age.” National Public Library--All Things Considered. (April 4,2011) http://www.npr.org/2011/04/04/135117829/the-future-of-libraries-in-the-e-book-age?sc=emaf
FAQ: What defines a library presence on the Internet?
 |
| The Shifted Librarian Retrieved May 20, 2012 Some rights reserved |
By Bryan
In an age when information seekers are growing to expect remote access to a library’s holdings and services, we see the advent of what has been dubbed “Library 2.0.” The language used is derived from the concept “Web 2.0”, and attempts to bridge the changing landscape of web technologies to the world of libraries. The characteristics of “Library 2.0” include the utilization of evolving internet and social media tools to reach users. Libraries should make good use of any and all available resources to steer users toward their content and services. Facebook can be utilized to establish a web presence, possibly capturing users as they engage in large scale internet searches. The page can be used to communicate essential library information, and act as a reminder to information seekers that there are resources that are more refined, easier to use, and with full support at the library. Blogs can be used to create a dialogue between users and staff, offering a chance for them to comment and seek current information. This conversation is a useful tool in gathering feedback and data to improve service and deduce changing user needs. Bookmarking is an emerging way for libraries to grab and tag resources that may escape conventional cataloging practices (LC subject heading, MeSH headings, LC and Dewey classification schemes). The appropriate information can then be gathered and offered to groups of relevant users (students, community groups, doctors, etc.).
The following are resources to further explore the concept of “Library 2.0” and the role social media might play in the future of libraries.
---- (March 5, 2012). Library 2.0. Retrieved from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Library_2.0
---- (2012). Library 2.0: The future of libraries in a digital age. Retrieved from http://www.library20.com/
(Note: this site is hosting its 2nd virtual conference in October 2012.)
Fitcher, D. (2003). Why and How to Use Blogs to Promote Your Library's Services. Marketing Library Services 17(6). Retrieved from http://www.infotoday.com/mls/nov03/fichter.shtml
Maness, J. (2006). Library 2.0 theory: Web 2.0 and its implications for libraries. Webology 3(2). Retrieved from: http://www.webology.org/2006/v3n2/a25.html
FAQ: How should libraries respond to the digital divide?
 |
| Robert Cottingham |
By Bryan
The digital divide describes inequalities that have arisen in the access to and knowledge of evolving information technologies. There are a host of factors that can be examined to theorize how and why this happens. Libraries are engaged in the attempt to resolve this problem by providing users access to current technologies. This access is universal and there are no qualifying factors that users must meet; unfettered and open access to information is seen as the remedy that libraries can provide. Technologies available in libraries do depend on capital being available to fund the purchases, but it is always in a libraries mission to stay as current as possible. It is especially important that there is training available within the library to help familiarize users with technological resources. A good example of this in action is the Job Shop at the Louisville Free Public Library. Patrons are not only given access to modern job application resources, they are also trained in to utilize then.The following are resources to learn more about the digital divide and the role libraries play.
McClure, C. (2011, December 13.) A "new" digital divide? Retrieved from http://www.ors.ala.org/libconnect/2011/12/13/a-new-digital-divide/
FAQ: Is Google Making Us Stupid?
By Jana
Nicholas Carr first posed the question in the pages of the The Atlantic in the summer of 2008. But the issues he addressed were not new; similar concerns about the social and physical effects of the radio and movies were raised in the 1930s by Aldous Huxley in Brave New World. By the 1960s thinkers such as Marshall MacLuhan, Walter Ong and Neil Postman pondered the negative effects of new communication techologies such as alphabets, the printing press, and television on the quality of human life. In the 1990s Jane M. Healy rattled American parents by theorizing that fast-paced TV shows like Sesame Street were rewiring children’s plastic brains to crave constant change, thus shortening attention spans and lowering test scores.
In the last decade, researchers have demonstrated that brain function continues to be altered by what we engage with throughout our lives. So now the spotlight is on the effects of our multi-generational love affair with electronic media. Are they beneficial or destructive?
Carr and others such as Larry Rosen are convinced that with mobile gadgets and wireless networks making Internet access and use simpler, faster, and cheaper, our society needs to step back and wonder whether this is always a good thing. Carr is not only concerned about the erosion of our ability to think deeply, but also the erosion of the slower brain processes needed to experience empathy and compassion for others. And that in the end, we will become less human and more like the machines to which we are addicted.
But Carr has his critics. The Atlantic published Jamais Cascio’s rebuttal, “Get Smarter,” in the summer of 2009. The author touted the advantages of what he calls “fluid intelligence.” Cascio believes that engagement with the Internet will, in the long-term, actually improve our “ability to find meaning in confusion and to solve new problems, independent of acquired knowledge.” He says that this type of intelligence “doesn’t look much like the capacity to memorize and recite facts,” but that eventually it will lead us to a better way of thinking and processing information. We must bow to the inevitable, and rely on "strengthening our fluid intelligence.” This is the “only viable approach to navigating the age of constant connectivity.”
Teachers at all levels--kindergarten through college--report that their students increasingly lose patience with reading texts that are not fast-paced and exciting. And, as literacy expert Elizabeth Moje stated in the April 3, 2012 edition of Education Week, students “‘basically can’t make meaning of what they have read.’” Blame for this trend is usually placed on “video games, iPods, and social media.”
Is Google is making us stupid and less human, or does it has great potential to improve our lives? There does not have to be a black-and-white answer. Both can be true. And libraries can play an important role in helping our society take advantage of the benefits and mitigate the dangers of the Internet. Much as we used to ask people to pull the plug on their TV sets, a public or university library could sponsor community-wide Internet-free days. At the same time, librarians should encourage and guide patrons in using the Internet wisely and well.
For further reading:
Anderson, Janna and Lee Rainie. “Does Google Make Us Stupid?” Pew Internet & AmericanLife Project (February 19, 2010) http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1499/google-does-it-make-us-stupid-experts-stakeholders-mostly-say-no
Carr, Nicholas. “Is Google Making Us Stupid? What the Internet is Doing to our Brains.” The Atlantic (July/August 2008). http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2008/07/is-google-making-us-stupid/6868/
Carr, Nicholas. The Shallows: What the Internet is Doing to our Brains. New York: W. W.Norton & Company, 2010.
Cascio, Jamais. “Get Smarter.” Atlantic Magazine (July/August 2009). http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2009/07/get-smarter/7548/
Healy, Jane M. Endangered Minds: Why Children Don't Think And What We Can Do About It. New York: Simon & Schuster, 1999.
Herold, Benjamin. “New Literacy Standards Could Challenge Evan Passionate Readers.” Education Week (April 3, 2012). http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2012/04/03/28pnbk_reading.h31.html?qs=literacy
Huxley, Aldous. Brave New World. London: Chatto & Windus, 1932.
Johnson, Steven. Everything Bad Is Good for You: How Today's Popular Culture Is Actually Making Us Smarter. Riverhead, 2005.
Ong, Walter J. Interfaces of the Word: Studies in the Evolution of Consciousness and Culture. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1977.
Postman, Neil. Amusing Ourselves to Death: Public Discourse in the Age of Showbusiness. New York: Penguin, 1985.
“Parenting Controversies: Will TV Rot Your Baby’s Brain?” The Week. (October 19, 2011). http://theweek.com/article/index/220463/will-tv-rot-your-babys-brain
Rosen, Larry D. iDisorder: Understanding Our Obsession with Technology and Overcoming Its Hold on Us. Palgrave MacMillan, 2012.
Nicholas Carr first posed the question in the pages of the The Atlantic in the summer of 2008. But the issues he addressed were not new; similar concerns about the social and physical effects of the radio and movies were raised in the 1930s by Aldous Huxley in Brave New World. By the 1960s thinkers such as Marshall MacLuhan, Walter Ong and Neil Postman pondered the negative effects of new communication techologies such as alphabets, the printing press, and television on the quality of human life. In the 1990s Jane M. Healy rattled American parents by theorizing that fast-paced TV shows like Sesame Street were rewiring children’s plastic brains to crave constant change, thus shortening attention spans and lowering test scores.
In the last decade, researchers have demonstrated that brain function continues to be altered by what we engage with throughout our lives. So now the spotlight is on the effects of our multi-generational love affair with electronic media. Are they beneficial or destructive?
Carr and others such as Larry Rosen are convinced that with mobile gadgets and wireless networks making Internet access and use simpler, faster, and cheaper, our society needs to step back and wonder whether this is always a good thing. Carr is not only concerned about the erosion of our ability to think deeply, but also the erosion of the slower brain processes needed to experience empathy and compassion for others. And that in the end, we will become less human and more like the machines to which we are addicted.
But Carr has his critics. The Atlantic published Jamais Cascio’s rebuttal, “Get Smarter,” in the summer of 2009. The author touted the advantages of what he calls “fluid intelligence.” Cascio believes that engagement with the Internet will, in the long-term, actually improve our “ability to find meaning in confusion and to solve new problems, independent of acquired knowledge.” He says that this type of intelligence “doesn’t look much like the capacity to memorize and recite facts,” but that eventually it will lead us to a better way of thinking and processing information. We must bow to the inevitable, and rely on "strengthening our fluid intelligence.” This is the “only viable approach to navigating the age of constant connectivity.”
Teachers at all levels--kindergarten through college--report that their students increasingly lose patience with reading texts that are not fast-paced and exciting. And, as literacy expert Elizabeth Moje stated in the April 3, 2012 edition of Education Week, students “‘basically can’t make meaning of what they have read.’” Blame for this trend is usually placed on “video games, iPods, and social media.”
Is Google is making us stupid and less human, or does it has great potential to improve our lives? There does not have to be a black-and-white answer. Both can be true. And libraries can play an important role in helping our society take advantage of the benefits and mitigate the dangers of the Internet. Much as we used to ask people to pull the plug on their TV sets, a public or university library could sponsor community-wide Internet-free days. At the same time, librarians should encourage and guide patrons in using the Internet wisely and well.
For further reading:
Anderson, Janna and Lee Rainie. “Does Google Make Us Stupid?” Pew Internet & AmericanLife Project (February 19, 2010) http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1499/google-does-it-make-us-stupid-experts-stakeholders-mostly-say-no
Carr, Nicholas. “Is Google Making Us Stupid? What the Internet is Doing to our Brains.” The Atlantic (July/August 2008). http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2008/07/is-google-making-us-stupid/6868/
Carr, Nicholas. The Shallows: What the Internet is Doing to our Brains. New York: W. W.Norton & Company, 2010.
Cascio, Jamais. “Get Smarter.” Atlantic Magazine (July/August 2009). http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2009/07/get-smarter/7548/
Healy, Jane M. Endangered Minds: Why Children Don't Think And What We Can Do About It. New York: Simon & Schuster, 1999.
Herold, Benjamin. “New Literacy Standards Could Challenge Evan Passionate Readers.” Education Week (April 3, 2012). http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2012/04/03/28pnbk_reading.h31.html?qs=literacy
Huxley, Aldous. Brave New World. London: Chatto & Windus, 1932.
Johnson, Steven. Everything Bad Is Good for You: How Today's Popular Culture Is Actually Making Us Smarter. Riverhead, 2005.
Ong, Walter J. Interfaces of the Word: Studies in the Evolution of Consciousness and Culture. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1977.
Postman, Neil. Amusing Ourselves to Death: Public Discourse in the Age of Showbusiness. New York: Penguin, 1985.
“Parenting Controversies: Will TV Rot Your Baby’s Brain?” The Week. (October 19, 2011). http://theweek.com/article/index/220463/will-tv-rot-your-babys-brain
Rosen, Larry D. iDisorder: Understanding Our Obsession with Technology and Overcoming Its Hold on Us. Palgrave MacMillan, 2012.
FAQ: What do I decide what to use?
 |
| Will Lion Retrieved May 20, 2012 |
By Bethany
Web 2.0 is amazing and can be adapted to nearly any purpose, but you only have so many places when you can focus your attention--both in the virtual world and in real life. So how do you decide what to focus on? There are 3 factors I consider when evaluating Web 2.0 tools:
What are my patrons using? A 2010 study by E. Cassidy et al. found that at their institution, Sam Houston State University, that students had a great interest in library presence in social networks like Facebook and accessing reference services by instant messaging, but little interest in library-sponsored RSSfeeds and Twitter. By doing an similar formal or information surveys, I can find out whether the online preferences of my library patrons matches SHSU or favor other services. My patrons are also feeling the technology crunch, and they aren’t going to necessarily jump to a new platform just because I’m using it to provide stellar content. When I can find the sweet spot between a platform I’m excited about and my patrons like too, Web 2.0 magic happens.
What do I like? Web 2.0 platforms are inherently personal. Your personality will leak out. (Can you tell?) Some people are more suited to the concise platform of Twitter; others prefer the ability to muse a bit on their blog. Some people like consolidating their private and public faces on one or two services; others prefer to keep them separate. Check out a lot of platforms so you can find one that suits your interests the best. However once you’ve found something, keep looking. You never know what service is just a launch away. Regardless of what you choose remember that Web 2.0 is a conversation. Don’t just share information; share yourself.
What are the expectations of my organization? I like to make sure my supervisor has a clear idea how Web 2.0 maintenance fits into my job description. If maintaining a strong collaborative presence is important to your director, then you might need to negotiate your other responsibilities or pull in more people to manage your library’s presence in different networks. Your online initiatives will get more support (and recognition) from your organization if they know what in fact you are doing and more importantly how it’s getting people excited about the library.
For more reading, check out:
Jones, J. (2012, March 8). How to learn the basics of digital technology.” Retrieved from: https://chronicle.com/blogs/profhacker/how-to-learn-the-basics-of-digital-technology/38885
Koltay, T. (2011). Information Overload, Information Architecture and Digital Literacy. Bulletin Of The American Society For Information Science & Technology, 38(8), 33-35.
Moorefield-Lang, H. (2012, March 22). When your technology dance card is full.” Retrieved from: http://letterstoayounglibrarian.blogspot.com/2012/03/when-your-technology-dance-card-is.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)