Blogging Off

Part A

Social networking and Web 2.0 technologies are not something I engaged with before undertaking this subject. However, in my studies I came across an idea often expressed: “The librarian has been moving away from the ‘gatekeeper of knowledge’ for a very long time now” (Bradley, 2007, p. 8). The terms Web 2.0, participatory library service and Library 2.0 were present in every area of my studies. It became clear that I needed to change my attitude towards social networking and Web 2.0 technologies if I was to be effective in my future profession.

Unfortunately, I was a victim of a self imposed digital divide – OLJ 3 – where social networking and Web 2.0 were concerned. “Commonly, the digital divide is defined as the gap between those who do and do not have access to computers and the Internet” (van Dijk, 2006, p. 178). I lacked motivation which is one aspect of the larger access divide (Mossberger, Tolbert, & Stansbury, Virtual inequality: Beyond the digital divide, 2003; van Dijk, 2005). Learning in this subject reinforced what other subjects had already taught me: libraries and librarians are imperative in addressing the inequities of the digital world beyond providing free access to it. They offer programs based on client needs and today’s need will include Web 2.0 technologies.

Of the readings in the digital divide area for this subject, the one concerning the need to participate in the networked society spoke most to me (Jenkins, Clinton, Purushotma, Robinson & Weigel 2006). They were talking about the foundations for digital citizenship (Mossberger, Tolbert, & McNeal, Digital citizenship, 2008). “Digital citizenship is the ability to participate in society online” (Mossberger, Tolbert, & McNeal, Digital citizenship, 2008). Technology moves so fast and for many the library is their technology lifeline. It made sense to learn about the technologies so that I could help those who needed it in my future profession.

But it is more than helping others engage with the technologies for their own uses. My own learning for Library 2.0 initiatives was just as vital. My blog post on ASU – OLJ 2 – showed me what a library leveraging Web 2.0 technologies could achieve. I judged them as successful not by Web 2.0 standards but by Library 2.0 standards. A Library 2.0 service is any service that: successfully reaches users, is frequently evaluated, makes use of customer input and perhaps most importantly is physical or virtual (Casey & Savastinuk, 2006).

I think that failing an institution like ASU that has shown what can be done with these technologies because they have not done enough to allow content creation for their users would be insulting. I think the underlying principles of the 4Cs are one a library should have in mind when trying to improve services but it shouldn’t be the measuring stick. Phil Bradley makes a good case for doing away with all the measuring sticks and monikers: “My personal view is that a library or information centre is in the business of ensuring that its users are served as quickly and effectively as possible, using the most appropriate tools ... there are lots of resources now available that can assist in this process, and I am less concerned with the specific terminology than in what these resources actually are, and how (and if) they can be used” (Bradley, 2007, p. 193).

So, what are some of the technologies that will provide better services? In my studies I found that RSS – OLJ 1 – was a useful tool that could be utilised in many ways within the library. I was not familiar with what RSS was before undertaking this course. I had seen the icon on websites but did not know what it did. RSS or Really Simple Syndication is an XML application which allows for the aggregation of subscribed content distributed as a list of headlines, update notices and occasionally full-text content (Bansode & Dahibhate, 2009). The only requirements for RSS in XML are a syntactic tag for a title, a link (URL) and a description (Tennant, 2003).

In library world, RSS is used as a portal, a way of evaluation and recommendation of websites, filtering and customisation of information delivery and as a way of reviewing information in a succinct format (Bansode & Dahibhate, 2009). But I saw a more personal use. There is far more information out there today than any one person can keep abreast of without the help of an RSS feed (Tennant, 2003). A new librarian could make use of RSS to keep themselves up-to-date with innovative and successful library services whether Web 2.0 based or not.

These three examples show my achievement of the outcomes of the course most noticeably: effective use and evaluation of social networking tools and environments (OLJ 1); understanding of theory and practice of Library 2.0 and participatory library service (OLJ 2); and understanding of a range of issues that exist in a socially networked world (OLJ 3).

Part B

Despite still holding the position that social networking is not something I have the inclination for in my personal life, I have grown in knowledge and skills as a social networker throughout this course. Professionally, I see social networking and Web 2.0 technologies in an entirely different light. They can be used to market the library and its services (Khan & Bhatti, 2012) and are integral parts of library 2.0 initiatives and participative library services (Bradley, 2007). Where I don’t see them as personally useful, I see them as professionally vital.

Library 2.0 goes beyond just the technological but still Web 2.0 technologies are a large part of innovative and participative library service (Blakesley, 2011). These technologies can help us reshape and improve services in all types of libraries. “Regardless of budget, library type, infrastructure, or staffing, there are still opportunities for us to wisely and creatively enhance our services and collections as Web 2.0 developments continue to reshape the environment in which we work, teach, and learn” (Blakesley, 2011, p. 101). Library catalogues are no longer just inventories of resources; the better ones are “social spaces, and an online community” (Tarulli, 2012, p. 1). Thus, learning the tools is an important first step to a change from the old ways of libraries being simply gatekeepers of knowledge (Bradley, 2007).

For the sake of brevity, I shall only recount about two of the tools I improved my knowledge and skills with over the course of my study.

For my first example I shall use blogs as they are the tool I have gained the most experience. In this blog I developed a voice (Bradley, 2007), a mild exaggeration of my own, taking the stance that most would be more edutainment posts as I worked my way through modules. However, this was not the only voice represented as I employed a standard academic voice for the three posts necessary for this assessment.

Like all Web 2.0 technology there is some technical knowhow necessary to create a blog. Although blogs are supposed to simplify writing in HTML (Bradley, 2007), I found that I had to do a bit of learning about HTML just to ensure that background colours did not change on me in many post. Still, I found blogs to be an effective tool which only requires basic skill with HTML and can see their many uses in my future profession.

Blogs have applications in promotion and publicity (Bradley, 2007). They can promote hours, new resources and library events while encouraging debate and interaction, creating virtual exhibitions and involving staff and users (Bradley, 2007). However, we should ensure that we are engaging in legitimate conversation and not just pushing information if we want to maximise their potential (Tarulli, 2012).

I found that the same issue inherent in creating a library blog is that which is inherent in all other library use of social networking tools: policy. “Organizations are made up of individuals and groups of people with different values and interests. Policy making is one mechanism to ensure that these individual interests are managed for the greater good, and to ensure that individuals within the organization are moving forward in the same direction” (Bryson, 2006, p. 125). Always, a blog represents someone’s voice and in the library that voice should align itself with the parent organisation and be subject to policies created by that organisation.

My second example to show learning in this subject comes from researching for my assessment on folksonomies. I have a strong preference for the folksonomy offered by LibraryThing to library OPACs and have taken to using it when searching for something to read. It is due to this preference that I created my other major assessment around folksonomies and how they can improve the OPAC. At the outset, I knew that incorporating folksonomy into the OPAC improved discoverability and encouraged participatory library service (Mendez, Quinonez-Skinner, & Skaggs, 2009). What I did not know was the technical side of folksonomies and the problems inherent in the incorporation into traditional library systems especially where subject indexing was concerned (Macgregor & McCulloch, 2006; Spiteri, 2007). I was not aware of the impact of uncontrolled tagging behaviour (Cantador, Konstas, & Jose, 2011; Peters, 2009). I was also not aware that there were shortcuts to the necessary data necessary for a fully realised folksonomy (Pirmann, 2012; Hider, 2012). Through my research into folksonomies, I now have a better understanding of all the issues that must be considered before their incorporation into the OPAC and how best to make such endeavours successful.

Through my engaging with blog while working through the modules and my own research necessary for the completion of my case study into folksonomies and the OPAC, I feel that I have succeeded in meeting all the outcomes for the subject. Moreover, I think that I have gained a more positive attitude around the platforms and tools ... at least in a professional sense.

Works Cited

Bansode, S., & Dahibhate, N. B. (2009). RSS applications in libraries and information centres. Library Philosophy and Practice.

Blakesley, E. (2011). Introduction: Library 2.0. Public Services Quarterly, 99-101.

Bradley, P. (2007). How to use Web 2.0 in your library. London: Facet.

Bryson, J. (2006). Managing information services: A transformational approach (2nd ed.). Burlington: Ashgate.

Cantador, I., Konstas, I., & Jose, J. M. (2011). Categorising social tags to improve folksonomy-based recommendations. Web Semantics: Science, Services and Agents on the World Wide Web, 9(1), 1-15.

Casey, M. E., & Savastinuk, L. C. (2006). Library 2.0: Service for the next-generation library. Library Journal. Retrieved April 2013, from http://www.libraryjournal.com/article/CA6365200.html

Hider, P. (2012). Information resource description: Creating and managing metadata. London: Facet.

Jenkins, H. C. (2006). Confronting the challenges of participatory culture: Media education for the 21st century. Chicago: The MacArthur Foundation. Retrieved May 2013, from http://digitallearning.macfound.org/atf/cf/%7B7E45C7E0-A3E0-4B89-AC9C-E807E1B0AE4E%7D/JENKINS_WHITE_PAPER.PDF

Khan, S. A., & Bhatti, R. (2012). Application of social media in marketing of library and information services: A case study from Pakistan. Webology, 9(1).

Macgregor, G., & McCulloch, E. (2006). Collaborative tagging as a knowledge organisation and resource discovery tool. Library Review, 55(5), 291-300.

Mendez, L. H., Quinonez-Skinner, J., & Skaggs, D. (2009). Subjecting the catalog to tagging. Library Hi Tech, 27(1), 30-41.

Mossberger, K., Tolbert, C. J., & McNeal, R. S. (2008). Digital citizenship. Cambridge: The MIT Press.

Mossberger, K., Tolbert, C. J., & Stansbury, M. (2003). Virtual inequality: Beyond the digital divide. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Prss.

Peters, I. (2009). Folksonomies: Indexing and retrieval in Web 2.0. (P. Becker, Trans.) Berlin: De Gruyter.

Pirmann, C. (2012). Tags in the catalogue: Insights from a usability study of LibraryThing for Libraries. Library Trends, 61(1), 234-247.

Spiteri, L. F. (2007). The structure and form of folksonomy tags: The road to the public library catalog. Information Technology and Libraries, 26(3), 13-25.

Tarulli, L. (2012). The library catalogue as social space: Promoting patron driven collections, online communities, and enhanced reference and readers' services. Santa Barbara: Libraries Unlimited.

Tennant, R. (2003). Feed your head. Library Journal, 128(9), 30.

van Dijk, J. (2005). The deepening divide: Inequality in the information society. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

van Dijk, J. (2006). The network society (2nd ed.). London: Sage Publication.

Web 4.Oh You Are Surely Kidding

This is it, my final post before the final post and I am ending on the rant to end all rants!

Technology is going to save the world! Surely Marcus Cake intended to make readers laugh. Technology is what is going to end the world and our desire for the latest in technology is speeding it on its way.

Recently my girlfriend's phone plan was coming to an end. This left her with a phone that was just under two years old and functioning adequately. Optus called and offered her a new one and another two year contract which she of course jumped at because shiny things are not just for potheads anymore.

This would not be so bad if we did not vacation at Western Plains Zoo and hear how procuring something necessary for mobile phones to function is killing elephants. So, we took the mobile phone recycling bag and plenty of photos of the elephant because heaven forbid we should just experience the moment purely in the moment. Then it's home with our memories and photos for those with deficient ones and a giant middle finger to Barbar the second the latest shiny toy comes on offer. Awareness means diddly where humans are concerned. We want what we want whatever the cost to the planet and we want everything smothered in bacon and cheese. We are simple creatures no matter how advanced our technology might become. And we are killing the world one species at a time with our selfish ways.

So, if your children ever ask you why the elephants died out say, "Sorry kids, I just had to have the iPhone 7 or my friends wouldn't have thought I was cool anymore." But don't cry too much for the elephant kids because the bigger tragedy is that they are just one of the many species we are going to wipe out until we reach our final goal: humanity itself!!!! And on that horribly exaggerated note, rant off.

(My sentiments exactly)

The Digital Divide - OLJ Post

I’ve been interested in the digital divide since I first heard the term when I began my MIS. It is part of the reason that I undertook this unit as I am not a social networker myself and assume that helping patrons who find themselves on the wrong side of the digital divide would be a large part of my duties if I were to work in client services. I had to learn if I was going to teach!

“Commonly, the digital divide is defined as the gap between those who do and do not have access to computers and the Internet” (van Dijk, 2006, p.178). In its early inception the concept of the digital divide was concerned only with access. Mossberger, Tolbert & Stansbury (2003) posit that this is only one of four facets of the digital divide: the access divide, the skill divide, the economic opportunity divide and the democratic divide. Others have also suggested that the digital divide is multi-faceted and even expand further the work of Mossberger, et al. such as van Dijk’s (2005) classification of multiple access divides: motivational, material, skill and usage. This illustrates that the internet is no longer a luxury and those that lack access to it are at a disadvantage in today’s networked society.

Bertot, Jaeger, McClure, Wright, & Jensen, (2009) are mainly concerned with access which is only one facet if the digital divide and the one libraries are already addressing albeit sometimes at a disadvantage. Jenkins, Clinton, Purushotma, Robison & Weigel (2006) concern themselves with more than surface provision of access to networked computers. They also address the skill divide. Furthermore, when Jenkins et al. (2006) illustrate the need engage in the networked society, they are talking about the foundations of digital citizenship. “Digital citizenship is the ability to participate in society online” (Mossberger; Tolbert & McNeal, 2008, p. 14). Participating in society online is more requires a specialised information literacy that goes beyond what was necessary only 5 years ago. Web 2.0 technologies are increasingly multimedia technologies and those not already well practiced in their use fall further behind every day which is why van Dijk (2005) labels the “deepening divide” to the digital divide.

Libraries and librarians are imperative in addressing the inequities of the digital world and not only because they provide free access to it. Libraries and the librarians that work in them offer programs based on the needs of their clients and today their clients need programs that revolve around effective IT use and that include more than basic skills. Today’s library needs to be teaching Web 2.0 technologies like the ones we have been using throughout this semester and to do so they need to be confident with them themselves. While I might not be quite there yet, I think that this course has given me a solid foundation to build upon.

Works Cited

Bertot, J. C., Jaeger, P. T., McClure, C. R., Wright, C. B., & Jensen, E. (2011). Public libraries and the Internet 2008-2009: Issues, implications, and challenges. First Monday, 14(11), 14(11). Retrieved May 2013, from http://firstmonday.org/ojs/index.php/fm/article/viewArticle/2700/2351

Jenkins, H. C. (2006). Confronting the challenges of participatory culture: Media education for the 21st century. Chicago: The MacArthur Foundation. Retrieved May 2013, from http://digitallearning.macfound.org/atf/cf/%7B7E45C7E0-A3E0-4B89-AC9C-E807E1B0AE4E%7D/JENKINS_WHITE_PAPER.PDF

Mossberger, K., Tolbert, C. J., & McNeal, R. S. (2008). Digital citizenship. Cambridge: The MIT Press.

Mossberger, K., Tolbert, C. J., & Stansbury, M. (2003). Virtual inequality: Beyond the digital divide. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Prss.

van Dijk, J. (2005). The deepening divide: Inequality in the information society. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

van Dijk, J. (2006). The network society (2nd ed.). London: Sage Publication.

Its Wat Da Kool Kidz R Doin'

Pardon the grammar and lack of time spent on this post but assignment time has rolled around again and I'm not wasting my best for one that isn't one of da big 3.

Seriously though, I'd rather post another reason to add to Burkhardt's 4. Libraries today have customers that never walk through the doors of their buildings. The virtual branch is their only contact with the library and social networks provide an annex to the virtual branch where patrons and staff can informally hang and (pardon the horrid and poorly used pun) partake in java. We meet the patrons in this annex and involve ourselves in Burkhardt's other four 4 reasons for engaging in the first place. In a networked world the virtual branch and its users have to be treated with the same care we give the physical branch. We can't ignore our customer just because we didn't see the walk through the doors.

And if that cant convince you why we should bother with social networking then do it because its wat da kool kidz r doin'! Which is the same reason I'm getting a neck tattoo of a My Little Pony character (Pinky Pie or Rainbow Dash: decisions, decisions) and piercing my belly-button with a Lockwood lock. So, get off your apathetic gen-x butt, stop watching awesome cartoons for five minutes and join up.

Librarian 2.0 = The Sexy Librarian

This is the image of Librarian 1.0: bespectacled, hair in a bun, advancing in years and waiting for anything cracking 3 decibels so she can give it the harshest of shushes. She likely dies as she sends out late fines and roams the stacks as a ghost à la Ghostbusters' opening scene.

(Scary stuff and I don't think I can pull off the Bun)

This is the image of Librarian 2.0: the hair is loose, the clothes are tight and the shush is bordering on erotic. She dies in the throws of passion while attempting some of the more physically demanding moves she read in the digital copy of the Kamasutra her library holds (ISBN 0973338644). She haunts nobody and heaven gets a new angel.

(Much sexier and still bespectacled)

So, what talents does this sexy wench of the stacks possess that makes her so superior to Librarian 1.0? A freewheeling attitude and a willingness to try new things (even though she probably should have left the Kamasutra positions requiring the flexibility of a contortionist alone). She openly defies library convention to better serve the users and she does all this while wearing a garter and suicide heels. She plays in the users sandbox and not only uses their toys (rss, wikis, etc) she does so in ways they never imagined and is able to teach them a thing or two.You need to smoke a cigarette after you read her blog and you keep trying to put yourself in a relationship with her via the library's facebook page that she updates often. She is always pinterested in the latest trends but she still tweets about the classics. The library's flickr photos are tagged by the teenage boy users for how much cleavage you can see in them and there's that video from the Christmas party where she got a little tipsy and a lot naked that is circulating on the less reputable site of the web. She's almost the perfect woman - a chef in the kitchen (learned from the books in 641.5), a maid in the living room (learned from the books in 648.5) and a whore in the bedroom (though sadly the books in 307.6 will be the death of her) - although she still does have the annoying habit of taking pictures of her food and uploading them on instagram.

As good as the sexy Librarian 2.0 sounds, she is just as big a myth as the spinster Librarian 1.0 illustrated above her. The truth is the terms library 2.0 and librarian 2.0 are "meaningless because the term suggests that the changes in libraries are radical, when they are actually evolutionary. Librarians in the past have sought out the newest technologies and sought to provide good customer service. [...] libraries have evolved many times as the communities they serve have changed. When librarians embrace the changes in technology and society to find new and more effective ways to serve their patrons, they are not acting in brand-new 2.0 ways, they are simply being good librarians.” (T. Scott Plutchak as cited in Black, 2007, pp. 10-11).

It doesn't mean we can't be sexy although if you intend to go for the ideal illustrated above, I suggest you limber up before trying out the most difficult positions in your freshly checked out copy of the Kamasutra. And it doesn't mean that we shouldn't be embracing the new technologies that can improve library service. It just means that the essential knowledge is an evolving knowledge that keeps up with whatever can improve the library, the skills too are ever evolving to incorporate the new into the still relevant old and the attributes are a the sexy librarian's freewheeling attitude and willingness to try new things. I've seen some great ideas that I consider library-novas (the term I'm throwing out for the evolved library) that have nothing to do with Web 2.0 since beginning this degree. There are great advances in personal service like roving reference or the removal of the reference desk altogether like UNSW has done so the librarian is front and centre to greet you and ask if you need assistance as you walk through the door (Bailin, 2011). I'd hate to see great ideas like those passed up in favour of something just because it has a 2.0 tacked onto the end.

References:

Bailin, K. (2011). Changes in academic library space: A case study at the University of New South Wales. Australian academic & research libraries, 42(4), 342-359.

Black, E. L. (2007). Library 2.0 and beyond: Innovative technologies and tomorrow's user. (N. Courtney, Ed.) Connecticut: Libraries Unlimited.

(And because I couldn't help myself: the sexiest librarian I've ever seen!)

(And the librarian I'll likely become)

Field of Dreams Style Library Marketing

This post is in response to the library website module and the recent discovery I made that my local doesn't have one! They do have a paragraph on the council's website explaining where they are located. This wouldn't be so insane if they hadn't recently began a 1.6 million dollar refurbishment that is only mentioned in two places on the council's website (one of which is a broken link so you can't access that story and the other is how they are at a temporary location during the refurbishment due for completion August this year). I won't mention which library because I don't want this page to be one of the few a search engine returns for people looking for info but they claim to be one of the largest library networks in Sydney and many of the branches are undergoing similar refurbishment.

Sorry, Kevin Costner but "if you build it he will come" coming across the corn field in a hushed ominous voice just won't cut it anymore. You need to market your services to get the crowds and you need to market them where the crowds will see them. So, that is where they should be concentrating their efforts right now: Web 2.0 technologies to market the vastly improved library/libraries in their system to make the 1.6 million money well spent.

Web 2.0 technologies they need? I think they should concentrate on getting some Web 1.0 technologies first! Seriously, who doesn't at least have a fleshed out portal on the council's website in this day and age? A webpage with OPAC access, info on interim library services, a blog to keep the community updated on the progress of the upgrade and while they are at it add all the bells and whistles of modern websites. But they have taken some Web 2.0 strides in the form of social networking though I think it was drunkenly done as a joke by a librarian with a warped sense of humor. Seriously, their facebook page must be a joke (it has pictures of a woman holding her dogs and a dog in a santa hat as its only pictures the comments of which are in spanish and don't even think they were taken near the library). I am not the most savvy facebook user but even I could do better than this. They should take some tips on how to utilise facebook from the strip club that is listed in the places nearby on their page (https://www.facebook.com/pages/Sefton-Playhouse/150850011621800 - that's how you make facebook tastelessly work for you!). I'm not suggesting sexy librarian pics to spice up the library's page but anything would be an improvement on the lady with her dogs.

Library 2.0 - ASU - OLJ

Adopters of Web 2.0 technologies can be judged of their effectiveness against the philosophical 4C principles that underlie: collaboration, conversation, community and content creation. The Arizona State University (ASU) Library could be argued to be an example of a library that aspires to successfully leverage Web 2.0 technologies but have they realised this when measured against the philosophical underlying 4C’s?

Collaboration – to collaborate, as defined in its broadest sense, is to “Work together, especially in a joint intellectual effort” (Farlex, 2013). By this definition, ASU makes attempts to collaborate with its users to build better library services. The video Library Minute: The Social Connection (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ohyqXAhLgsM) is about library seeking to collaborate with its users through the various channels it has for communication. Though in a Web 2.0 sense this is not what is meant by collaboration, it is still admirable.

Conversation – to converse, as it would be most appropriate in Web 2.0 usage, is “interchange of thoughts and feelings; conversation” (Farlex, 2013). The Library Minute: The Social Connection is all about trying to engage the users in conversation to improve library service. Furthermore, the channels they provide on their website (http://lib.asu.edu/librarychannel/) to facilitate this conversation are numerous: facebook, twitter and ask-a-librarian. Moreover, they offer other one way channels of communication (YouTube, flickr, vimeo and the online suggestion box) for those who prefer this type of communication to achieve similar ends.

Community – in the Web 2.0 sense encourages “Sharing, participation and fellowship” (Farlex, 2013). I would argue that videos posted on Fun Things to Do at the Library (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HOsiYx9orK8) and Exhibits (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yJAPIimv6MY) are an attempt by ASU to create a sense of community. Furthermore, ASU’s social networking platforms keep their community informed of events of interest held by the library that would serve to strengthen the bonds of community between the library and its users. Though, these are not community in the Web 2.0 sense they are still good library practice.

Content Creation – this is where ASU truly stumbles in meeting the 4C’s in the slightest. ASU does not offer a way for its users to be content creators. Though they do encourage open access through the ASU Digital Repository (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pO38zHPhNQI&list=PLCA6A813AA9C9A574).

However, the success of a library should not be measured against Web 2.0 criteria: Library 2.0 criteria provide a much better measure. Casey and Savastinuk (2006) ask “What makes a service Library 2.0?” (para.20). It is any service that: successfully reaches users, is frequently evaluated, makes use of customer input and perhaps most importantly is physical or virtual (Casey and Savastinuk, 2006).  By that standard ASU may not be flawlessly Web 2.0 yet but they are a good example of a Library 2.0 institution. They are where their users want and need them like being available 24/7 on mobile devices (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oQ1ZjStKny0), inviting study spaces (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mi_SGY8niCY) and they offer a range of technologies that improve the catalogue (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F4Row35FdVA&list=PLCA6A813AA9C9A574 and http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iNe6yBSaORc). And isn’t all that improvement more important in the end?

Bibliography

Casey, M. E., & Savastinuk, L. C. (2006). Library 2.0: Service for the next-generation library. Library Journal. Retrieved April 2013, from http://www.libraryjournal.com/article/CA6365200.html

Farlex. (2013). Collaborate. Retrieved April 2013, from The Free Online Dictionary: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/collaborate

Farlex. (2013). Community. Retrieved April 2013, from The Free Online Dictionary: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/community

Farlex. (2013). Converse. Retrieved April 2013, from The Free Online Dictionary: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/converse

Library 2.Oh, Here We Go Again

I hate 2.0's! There, I've said it. Rather than continue with a long new rant I am going to repost a rant I did for another subject as a critique of a 2.0 based article.

Web 2.0 & Library 2.0: Revolution?

Shakespeare will always sound more eloquent than a grizzled old prospector, circa 1849, but I think “Thar’s gold in them thar hills!” serves adequately in critiquing Anderson’s (2007) article “All that glisters is not gold” – Web 2.0 and the librarian. And there is gold in the article but it is buried, as gold often is. Like everything in the world searching for that gold will be a much more pleasant task with the help of John and Paul ... the Beatles, not the Saints.

(Scream along with Paul - Aaaaah!)

“You say you want a revolution

Well, you know

We all want to change the world”

(Lennon-McCartney, 1968)

Web 2.0, according to Anderson (2007), is O’Reilly Media Inc’s revolution regarding the Web. But is it really all that revolutionary? The theory has many detractors and weighty ones at that. John Dvorak, a well-known columnist for PC Magazine, argues that the so called Web 2.0 revolution is in fact a simple evolution (Black, 2007). “The tools that allow people to do things for themselves are simply getting more efficient. The Web 2.0 products, such as podcasts and blogs, are all built on technology from the early 1990’s.” (Black, 2007, p. 4). Is this right? It certainly seems that way when his argument is backed up by the creator of the World Wide Web Tim Berners-Lee.

“Web 1.0 was all about connecting people. It was an interactive space, and I think Web 2.0 is of course a piece of jargon, nobody even knows what it means. If Web 2.0 for you is blogs and wikis, then that is people to people. But that was what the Web was supposed to be all along. [...] The idea of the Web as interaction between people is really what the Web is. That was what it was designed to be as a collaborative space where people can interact.”

(Berners-Lee cited in Black, 2007, p. 3)

So, Web 2.0 is nothing more than a myth but it has already has the library hitching its wagon to its star in the form of Library 2.0.

“You tell me that it’s evolution

Well, you know

We all want to change the world”

(Lennon-McCartney, 1968)

Library 2.0, the supposed evolution or revolution of the library, is nothing more than a myth itself. Curran, Murray, Norrby & Christian (2006) state, “Libraries, as we know them today, can be defined by the term Library 1.0. This defines the way resources are kept on shelves or at a computer behind a login. These resources can be taken from a shelf, checked out by library staff, taken home for a certain length of time and absorbed, and then returned to the library for someone else to avail of.” (p. 47). Really, is that all a library is? Many librarians would argue that it’s something more. And many do.

“You say you got a real solution

Well, you know

We’d all love to see the plan”

(Lennon-McCartney, 1968)

Objection to Library 2.0, “often comes in the guise of ‘we have been doing all this before’” (Godwin, 2008, p. 177). That is certainly the stance of T. Scott Plutchak, as cited in Black (2007), where it states:

“the term Library 2.0 is meaningless because the term suggests that the changes in libraries are radical, when they are actually evolutionary. Librarians in the past have sought out the newest technologies and sought to provide good customer service. [...] libraries have evolved many times as the communities they serve have changed. When librarians embrace the changes in technology and society to find new and more effective ways to serve their patrons, they are not acting in brand-new 2.0 ways, they are simply being good librarians.” (pp. 10-11)

And being good librarians should be the goal for those for and against the Library 2.0 moniker. Being good librarians in the age of the “web generation” will mean adopting the appropriate Web 2.0 technologies (Godwin, 2008, p. 5). As Miller (2006) states, “To those who object to the term, for whatever reason, should be careful not to dismiss the trends and messages along with the label.” (p. 1)

“You ask me for a contribution

Well, you know

We’re all doing what we can”

(Lennon-McCartney, 1968)

There is gold in them thar Web 2.0 hills but the whole hills are not made of gold. “We should utilize the tools, not for their own sake, but only where they improve our services, for the benefit of our users.” (Godwin, 2008, p. 177). Another problem is that by aligning itself with Web 2.0, Library 2.0 is missing the bigger technological picture. Anderson (2007) notes the comparison made between Amazon’s book delivery mechanisms and the inter-library loan process and points out that while its book delivery mechanism is key to Amazon’s success, it is not one of its Web 2.0 features.

In conclusion, Anderson’s (2007) article is golden in its suggestion that today’s librarian needs to understand the technology of the day but that message is mired by the 2.0 minutia. Libraries would best serve their patrons if they would all take Phil Bradley’s advice “Forget the 2.0 label and consider how you can do things better.” (cited in Godwin, 2008, p. 165)

Posted by Luke Warren at Saturday, March 31, 2012 

You might have noticed that I cherry picked some of the quotes for my Web 2.Oh that hype rant from earlier in the semester. I do love to recycle some hard found quotes when they are appropriate. Tomorrow's posts will be less negative towards my hatred for the 2.0's in the world and instead focused on the good they can produce if we all drop the 2.0 myopia we seem to be suffering from. Three legit OLJ's postings tomorrow should give me some variety to choose from at the end of the semester.

The Philosophy of Cartman

Just thought I'd share this video rather than my usual rant. It's perfect for this subject with its various friend driven social networks and VoIP because it's not only about the specific topic, it contains the most perfect philosophical statement on quality friendship at the end.

Virtual Suicide Note

I tried so hard to navigate this second life but I kept getting lost (the place is huge and stuff is hard to find). I tried moving forward but barriers kept getting in my way (literally - walls chairs, tables - I need a second life guide dog because my avatar is clearly blind). I felt often disconnected from the world (the result of a poor internet connection). I often could not feel the ground beneath my feet (when I forgot how to turn off the fly function). I could not even find love (for fear that the cute girl would turn out to be a dirty old man).

So, goodbye cruel virtual world.

Don't weep for me friends for I am off to a better place.

RSS - OLJ

RSS or Really Simple Syndication is an XML application which allows for the aggregation of subscribed content as it is created for a subscriber's viewing with feed readers (Bansode, Dahibhate and Ingale, 2009). This content can be distributed as a list of headlines, update notices and occasionally full-text content (Bansode et al, 2009). Requirements for RSS in XML are a syntactic tag for a title, a link (URL) and a description (Tennant, 2003).

RSS has its own universally recognised logo, see diagram 1 (Oxford Reference, 2013).

(Diagram 1)

RSS is utilised by many digital content providers. One such example is The Pirate Bay (TPB). Self descrbed as “The world’s largest bittorrent tracker”, TPB like many other bittorrent sites offers RSS for its various categories. TPB (2013) states RSS is a subscription format that gives you the option to instantly get notified when new torrents are added to our site. If you have a torrent client with support for RSS you can even let it search for your favorite series and automatically download new episodes as soon as they show up” (para.1). Another site using RSS, in a much more ethical manner that does not contravene copyright laws, is The Australian. The Australian offers RSS feeds of all their content via various categories including arts, various business, news, etc. Furthermore they offer feeds on their news magazine, IT and blog feeds.

In library world, RSS is used as a portal, a way of evaluation and recommendation of websites, filtering and customisation of information delivery and as a way of reviewing information in a succinct format (Bansode et al, 2009). These are all good uses for RSS by a library but library users can also indirectly benefit from the RSS use of the librarian that serves them. There is far more information out there today than any one person can keep abreast of without the help of an RSS feed (Tennant, 2003). By subscribing to the feeds pertinent to library world, a librarian can keep up to date on all the latest trends and success stories from the various feeds of others (Tennant, 2003). RSS could deliver to a librarian that missing ingredient they need to serve their community better.

Works Cited

Bansode, S., & Dahibhate, N. B. (2009). RSS applications in libraries and information centres. Library Philosophy and Practice.

Oxford Reference. (2013). RSS. Retrieved April 2013, from Oxford Reference: http://www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/oi/authority.20110803100407126

Tennant, R. (2003). Feed your head. Library Journal, 128(9), 30.

The Australian. (2013). RSS Feeds. Retrieved April 2013, from The Australian: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/help/rss

The Pirate Bay. (2013). Subscribe. Retrieved April 2013, from The Pirate Bay: http://thepiratebay.se/rss

I Don't Like Coffee!

I am one of the few adults I know that doesn't like coffee. You all got on the coffee bandwagon one day when I was probably looking up info on cartoons and left me behind to drink other childish beverages. Why does this piece of information matter? Because adults get together and drink coffee!!! It is the standard arbitrary task that is necessary for social interaction between adults. Kids they get together and play. Adults: coffee and a chat. Does anyone else think that the kids are the ones with the right idea?

I'm sure that a few of you are starting to see my point so I'll get to how this relates to this subject.

I also don't like social networks! They are the coffee of the online world. It seems like you are all willing to swallow the bitter filth that is social networking but I'm not drinking the Kool-Aid (or coffee). I'll accept that we have to live in a cafe culture and I'll even meet at a real cafe so you can all get your fix as long as I don't have to choose my blend and sip from the hole in the lid of a Styrofoam cup. And on a similar note, I'll accept that social networks may be part of my job but they won't follow me home.

But how will I stay connected in this fast paced Web 2.0 world? I have a phone that is always on me and unlike so many others, I actually answer it when it rings or beeps. I am as reachable and connected as I want and, more importantly, need to be. I don't feel the urge to announce that I went to the shop for bread to everyone I've ever known and my musings on life are best inflicted on whoever is in the room with me (and inflicted is the right word if the look on my girlfriend's face is anything to go by. I bet you're feeling a little inflicted upon right now). I have nothing interesting to say to the world that isn't pointless or fictional and no need to connect with that guy I played with in kindergarten (I'm sure he moved on too).

I'm not asking you to smash your coffee mug or to shut down your facebook account. All I'm saying is that there are other beverages out there and other ways to spend your time. Have a milkshake and disconnect from the social networks for a little while. Get off the fast paced Web 2.0 world for a few minutes and join the few of us left in the real world for some old-fashioned fun.

I realise that I am almost the last adult holdout in both social networking and coffee and I don't care if facebook now offers a timeline of the banal events of my life or if i can post as many pictures of my dinner as I want to to flickr or that a latte is more milky or if a mocha has chocolate (and why would you waste chocolate like that? It's like drawing a moustache on the Mona Lisa), I'm not joining the rest of you and no arguement you put forward can make me. And if we do happen to connect in the real world and decide to hangout, I'd rather we got together and did something more fun than consume steaming hot caffeinated liquid. Come on people, we were all kids once: exercise that imagination that is dying from lack of use and come up with a fun activity that doesn't involve your aromatic drug of choice. If nothing else, go with Will Hunting's pickup line and offer to take me out to eat a bunch of caramels.

I do like caramels!

The Monster Mashup

I have no idea why but I can never seem to get twittervision to work! I will dispense with the usual non-OLJ rant because I have something worth sharing. While I was tooling around Mashable, I found this inspiring piece from Patton Oswalt posted on facebook in response to the Boston marathon explosion.

Boston. Fucking horrible. 

I remember, when 9/11 went down, my reaction was, "Well, I've had it with humanity."

But I was wrong. I don't know what's going to be revealed to be behind all of this mayhem. One human insect or a poisonous mass of broken sociopaths. 

But here's what I DO know. If it's one person or a HUNDRED people, that number is not even a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of a percent of the population on this planet. You watch the videos of the carnage and there are people running TOWARDS the destruction to help out. (Thanks FAKE Gallery founder and owner Paul Kozlowski for pointing this out to me). This is a giant planet and we're lucky to live on it but there are prices and penalties incurred for the daily miracle of existence. One of them is, every once in awhile, the wiring of a tiny sliver of the species gets snarled and they're pointed towards darkness. 

But the vast majority stands against that darkness and, like white blood cells attacking a virus, they dilute and weaken and eventually wash away the evil doers and, more importantly, the damage they wreak. This is beyond religion or creed or nation. We would not be here if humanity were inherently evil. We'd have eaten ourselves alive long ago. 

So when you spot violence, or bigotry, or intolerance or fear or just garden-variety misogyny, hatred or ignorance, just look it in the eye and think, "The good outnumber you, and we always will."

- Patton Oswalt

After 3 hours of going live, it was shared more than 81,000 times and received more than 97,000 likes. Then again it beats the crap out of the usual rubbish people post on facebook. Well, I'm off to status update YOLO with some insipid emoticon behind it to balance out the good Patton's doing on his page.

(I know that the video has little to do with the post but I couldn't help myself)