Assignment 2

EVALUATIVE STATEMENT


During INF506 the following immersive experiences have been undertaken:

Social bookmarking - Delicious was used to experience the advantages of sharing recommended web resources to communities. The ability to access the information from any connected device and the collaborative functions of tagging and commenting allows for effective delivery of resources to users and colleagues with little effort and time involved in maintenance.

RSS Feeds - were found to be a useful web 2.0 tool to collect and manage current and relevant information and can be used as an information or promotional service.

Twitter - was found to be a fast and effective way to share brief messages or links. The popularity of this tool insists that it should not be ignored as an effective networking tool. It was found that it could be more useful once a larger network could be built up and would require regular spurts of interaction.

Second Life - was found to be enjoyable and fun, but required large amounts of time invested in orientation and also required a higher than average computer specifications to run effectively. The potential of this tool however is exciting, and the enthusiasm of educational institutions in creating learning spaces in this alternate world reflects this.

Blogs - were found to be an effective way of getting a developing process or updates communicated and discussed. The potential of this narrative tool to share information and promote services is of great value to the library environment in creating communication and transparency to users and staff.

FaceBook - was found to be an effective way of sharing a range of mediums and is a popular social networking choice for many Australians. It has a wide and common user base which would be effective to share information and promote services.

Flikr and YouTube - were both a fun and exciting medium to add to the social networking experience, images effectively creating a message or preserving a history. Advantages of connecting with users through these web 2.0 tools ensures involvement in the creative content and creates a fun and technologically savvy image.


The development of Library 2.0 has been necessary to remain current and relevant to the users of libraries as modern day information providers and as support to the evolving social needs (Casey, Savastinuk, 2006). The global nature and diversity of the information available to the digitally connected allows a wide range of users and user needs to be met however large or small. Popular information can be addressed and accessed as easily as special interests. Library 2.0 is far more suited to recognise and address the value of the 'long tail' and endeavour to make it 'directly available to improve the work and lives of our users.' (Dempsey, 2006)

Library 2.0 must be savvy to address the expectations of the technically minded users and capture the interest of users who have little or no online connections. The Australian Oxford dictionary defines savvy as 'common sense or understanding' (Oxford, 2008). Although adoption of technology is inevitable, common sense and understanding developed through analysis of both users and available tools is necessary for purposeful outcomes avoiding reckless 'techno lust' (Farkas, 2008).

Connections with users have always been important with the library playing 'a key role to play in our social, cultural and educational activities' (Shiri, 2003) and it is important to follow the digital trends and preferences of the users to continue those connections, make new connections and facilitate networking to take place through successful implementation of appropriate web 2.0 tools. The role of Library 2.0 is to ensure that sufficient resources are allocated and dedicated to providing the conversation and collaboration required to claim library 2.0 (Bertot, Jaeger, McClure, Wright, Jensen, 2009)and not just a library that uses web 2.0 tools in a 1.0 way. An example of this is blogging without allowing public comments or neglecting to spend time addressing comments made to the blogger.

Safety, security and privacy issues are important and are being adjusted or amended as we develop Web 2.0 technologies with an arguable belief that these issues are being addressed adequately (De Rosa, Contrell, Havens, Hank, Jenkins, 2007. p2). To be connected in the web 2.0 world often means the surrender of an amount of privacy (Raynes-Goldie, 2010) as we move to build our online identities but have stimulated 'new emerging regulatory challenges' (James, 2010) clear policies and procedures are important in the library environment to set out acceptable behaviours in its context, and to ensure awareness of legal implications of online behaviours.


REFLECTIVE STATEMENT

INF506 has opened up the many possibilities and capabilities of web 2.0 as networking tool that adds to the strength of one’s social connections. Social interaction has shifted from the perception of out of work, leisurely interactions to a powerful tool to engage and interest the community in which we work. It was found that online social networking technologies are rapidly evolving and not mutually exclusive. For example, using delicious, we can tweet, or RSS feed information or the options on YouTube to share with FaceBook etc. Several network tools may become interwoven into our daily social interactions, this interoperability indicates the development of an 'open cloud' direction creating an optimal collaborative framework (Nelson, 2009). It is important to open one’s mind to try new technologies and learn how they can be utilised to deliver information to the modern library user. Through exposure and practice in using a variety of online networking tools, the potential to understand the impact open sources and collaborative efforts in education and innovation can ensure we engage and enrich our communities.

In introducing new online social networking tools, it has been discovered that FAQ pages such as those in Delicious, orientation or tours such as those in Second Life are invaluable introductions to new environments and reduce learning and training times providing an easier approach to the learning curve, also by responding positively to change (Cohen, 2006) we can allow the advantages or potential of a particular tool to become apparent, this was the case with ones experience of Second Life. Initially it appeared to be more appealing to gaming enthusiasts and was difficult to operate, however after orientation and practice, the potential as an engaging modern learning resource was appreciated.

Web 2.0 tools become and remain popular through their unique capabilities and appeal as a fresh new way to approach social interactions. Example of this is the rise of twitter with its short tweets. As information professionals it is important to monitor and research new trends in the online social networking sphere to remain relevant to the community.

User analysis can be a complex issue on or off line. In today’s global society with many choices available users cannot be thrown into any one category. It was concluded that analysis of the users and the tools available brings some usefulness to the implementation of web 2.0 tools, but with many of the tools being low cost and requiring little maintenance time, interaction and practice on many tools would be useful to attract a wider audience.

An understanding of power of crowd sourcing has been useful in acknowledging the value of user contribution to the success of a social networking experience. Folksonomies used in the tagging of bookmarks, video, pictures and blog posts can be useful to search the collaborative content and further encourages the feeling of ownership by the users.

The importance of a library to plan their social networking and continually monitor and assess the usefulness and effectiveness of social networking tools has been realised whilst studying this course. Creating awareness and listening to feedback from its users is an essential part of ensuring the tool is worthwhile. It has also been found that there is not one right answer to the social network needs of a community and that several different tools can be used and appeal to different users. There are several sources to keep up to date on the technologies and uses of those technologies in a library context.

The concept of Library 2.0 is widely accepted as the application of Web 2.0 to the library environment. It appears though that library 2.0 may applied in a misguided way and once certain tools are introduced, through lack of interest or lack of time they may be considered failures (Farkas, 2009). Through careful planning involving analysis of both the tool and the users, promotion of the tool and allocation of human resources and technology, acceptance and success of the tools is more likely. Focus on exciting and dynamic content as well as using the modern tools is important to ensure capture of audience and a higher chance of conversation and collaboration.

Although social networking appeals to the fun side of working with a group or users, there and many different levels of immersion and complexities to its application such as privacy, security and institutional policies that should be regarded when using them as a tool. Because of the duty of care to the society these services are provided to, these issues cannot be neglected when planning for and implementing social networking programs within a library environment.

3 OLJ experiences:

RSS Feeds

Library 2.0

Online Identites

References:

Australian Oxford Paperback Dictionary. (4th ed.). (2008). Melbourne, VIC: OUP.

Bertot, J. C., Jaeger, P. T., McClure, C. R., Wright, C. B., Jensen, E. (2009). Public libraries and the internet 2008-2009: Issues, implications, and challenges. First Monday. Retrieved from http://firstmonday.org/htbin/cgiwrap/bin/ojs/index.php/fm/article/viewArticle/2700/2351
Casey, M. E., Savastinuk, L.C.,(2006). Library 2.0: Service for the next generation library. Library Journal, 9/1/2006. Retrieved from http://www.libraryjournal.com/article/CA6365200.html

Cohen, L. (2006). A Librarian's 2.0 Manifesto. [video]. Retrieved from http://www.youtube.com.au/watch?v=ZblrRs3flcSU

Dempsey, L. (2006). Libraries and the Long Tail: Some thoughts about libraries in a network age. D-Lib Magazine, 12 (4). Retrieved from http://www.dlib.org/dlib/april06/dempsey/04dempsey.html

DeRosa, C., Cantrell, J., Havens, A., Hawk, J., Jenkins, L. (2007). Section 3: Privacy, security and trust in our networked world: A report to the OCLC membership. Dublin, Ohio: OCLC [ebook]. Retrieved from http://www.oclc.org/reports/pdfs/sharing_part3.pdf

Farkas, M. (2007). Building Academic Library 2.0. Symposium of Librarians Association of the University of California Berkley. Retrieved from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q_uOKFhoznI

Farkas, M. (2009). In: Library 2.0 Gang 12/09: Social software in libraries 15 December 2009.[podcast]. Retrieved from http://librarygang.talis.com/2009/12/15/library-2-0-gang-1209-social-software-in-libraries/

James, M. L. (2010). Cybercrime 2.0 versus the Twittering classes. Parliament of Australia, Dept. of Parliamentary Services, Parliamentary Library Information, analysis and advice for the Parliament. Science, Technology, Environment and Resources Section,24 Feb 2010 (2009-10). Retrieved from http://www.aph.gov.au/Library/pubs/bn/sci/Cybercrime.pdf

Landau, R. (2010). Solo Librarian and outreach to hospital staff using Web 2.0 technologies. Medical Reference Service Quarterly, 29 (1), 75-84.

Nelson, M. R. (2010). Building an open cloud. Science, 324(5935, 1656-1657. Retrieved from http://www.sciencemag.org.ezproxy.csu.edu.au/cgi/reprint/324/5935/1656.pdf

Raynes-Goldie, K. (2010). Aliases, creeping, and wall cleaning: Understanding privacy in the age of Facebook. First Monday, 15(1). Retrieved from http://firstmonday.org/htbin/cgiwrap/bin/ojs/index.php/fm/article/viewArticle/2775/2432
Shiri, A. (2003). Digital library research: Current developments and trends. Library Review, 52 (5), 198-202.

Tay, A. (2009). Libraries and crowdsourcing - 6 examples. Library 2.0: Librarians and the internet, social media and Web 2.0. Retrieved from http://library20.org/profiles/blogs/libraries-and-crowdsourcing-6

Youngkin, A. (2010). Librarian controlled RSS: A novel approach to literate search follow-up. Journal of Hospital Librarianship, 10(2), 123-131.

Online Identities

What is important in terms of how we present and manage online identities?

I think our awareness as to how open our identity information can be is important and also to know the terms of use and default settings and how they can be generally accepted yet may give out more information that we would like. Its obvious that to not be on the social networking sites can be a big disadvantage so there are measures and custom setting that can be made to manage our online identities as to how much information we give away.

An understanding of the advantages of the open web should also be taken into account, that our networks can be expanded and information sources and knowledge enriched through those connections. Our own authorship and creative talents can also be displayed and disseminated to a wider audience when our identities are open and more detailed.

What can we share and what should we retain as private to the online world?

This question cannot be given any one right answer. The decision we make may depend upon our need to share information and build up a network. Obviously there are incidents reported where giving too much information has lead to negative experiences, but there are also advantages to opening our profiles to the public.

Again awareness is important as to the terms, and default settings of our social platform, and also that we are not naive to the dangers that can come from different levels of disclosure for example location trackers.

There is a belief that people are concerned about their welfare but are willing to trade it for the value of being able to connect through the Internet (Raynes-Goldie, 2010). I think this has a great impact on the generalisation that the new generation is more open and less guarded or carefree about their privacy.

We accept terms these days because we want to get on with things. Every kind of web platform used comes part and parcel with its own set of guidelines and terms of agreements, do we read them? If we don't accept then we are not able to participate. Is this accepting under duress? Negating the effects of a so called 'terms of use agreement'? Well, that could be said, but the fact remains that the only way to develop privacy and security policies is through public debate to find a delicate balance between the moral expectations of the users and the amount of control the facilitators will allow, (ie - facebook have just announced they will allow more control over the group function (Chapman, 2010)) in the mean time we must accept and get on with it, and deal with security issues in our own way by awareness to default settings or manually manipulating the software to protect ourselves i.e. regular wall wiping and the use of an alias (Raynes-Goldie, 2010).

Chapman, C. (2010). Facebook reveals new 'groups' feature to bring cosy cliques back to online social networking. Technology. News.com.au, October 7, 2010. retreived from http://www.news.com.au/technology/facebook-reveals-new-groups-feature-to-bring-cosy-cliques-back-to-online-social-networking/story-e6frfro0-1225935349578

Raynes-Goldie, K. (2010). Aliases, creeping, and wall cleaning: Inderstanding privacy in the age of Facebook. First Monday 15 (1) retreived from http://firstmonday.org/htbin/cgiwrap/bin/ojs/index.php/fm/article/viewArticle/2775/2432

Identity, Privacy & Security

Face book

It is assumed that face book users particularly the younger users are not concerned about privacy and security issues. This may be because face book is so widely used however does not ensure privacy within a list of friends or at times friends of friends (allowing 'creeping').

Raynes Goldie's (2010) research suggests that young face book users are concerned with social privacy rather than institutional privacy and that people reconcile their use of the social networking tool with their privacy concerns through because of the social benefits and online identity it gives them, they do however use certain techniques to protect their privacy such as:

- cleaning their wall regularly
- using only part of their real name (although real names are required in the ToS)
- using alias's
- not including mobile phone numbers etc in profile

The article discusses the shift from privacy concerned which in the last generation were focused on the informational privacy that institutions offered to the protection of personal profiles (social privacy). This has arisen due to the transparency and openness of the online social structure of creating and maintaining identities that are networked throughout the web.

There is a belief that people are concerned about their welfare but are willing to trade it for the value of being able to connect through the Internet. I think this has a great impact on the generalisation that the new generation is more open and less guarded or carefree about their privacy.

We accept terms these days because we want to get on with things. Every kind of web platform used comes part and parcel with its own set of guidelines and terms of agreements, do we read them? if we don't accept then we are not able to participate. Is this accepting under duress? Well, that could be said, but the fact remains that the only way to develop privacy and security policies is in the public debate, in the mean time we must accept and get on with it, and deal with security issues in our own way by manipulating the software to protect ourselves.


NB - Raynes-Goldie explains social privacy as access to personal information and institutional privacy as institutional privacy as how the company (face book) uses that information.

Raynes-Goldie, K. (2010), Aliases, creeping, and wall cleaning: Understanding privacy in the age of Facebook, First Monday, 15 (1), 4 January. http://firstmonday.org/htbin/cgiwrap/bin/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/2775/2432

Open clouds

Internet security and privacy are important issues to all who use the Internet particularly in more recent times where we attach profiles including personal information and images to our social network sites. Clouds are a metaphor for online storage of data as opposed to working with software and data stored on servers of the owners of that information. It has been described as a platform for computing and communication linking millions of users to thousands of computers simultaneously (Nelson 2009)

'Building an open cloud' (Nelson 2009) explains that there can be three ways we go about the creation of this cloud Internet framework.

1. 'Many Clouds' - in which separate unconnected cloud platforms based on proprietary software in which the author asserts that the potential for new applications and closer collaboration would be lost.

2.'Hazy Skies' - in which data but not software could move between the different clouds which would make it difficult for the users to combine data and services operating in different clouds.

3.'Open Cloud' - in which there is a single global cloud to maximise the collaboration enabling users to assemble software and data easily to meet their needs.

As far as security is concerned, with the open cloud the author suggests that privacy enhancing technologies could be dispersed through out the cloud, it is easy to understand that although most concerns lie with the most open varieties of web use, this is also the easiest way to attain a central and consistent policy basis that is more easily distributed.

Users favour a more open approach to the availability of software and data on an open basis, the freedom that comes from breaking away from proprietary technologies, restricting the transfer of data over different platforms, however they are also concerned with privacy, copyrite and security.

Government policy to restrict access and collaboration by censoring the Internet could thwart the benefits of an open, global cloud which supports the economy, social interactions and innovation. The concerns of privacy and security would be best addressed in an open cloud instead of tailoring separate policies for separate clouds resulting in inconsistent policy and application.



Nelson, M.R. (2009). Building an open cloud [Cloud computing as platform]. Science, 324(5935, 1656-1657.

Information Access for all

Bandwidth/wireless/mobile connectivity and the 'digital divide'.

The modern library is one focused on providing information and services to the community. To ensure their survival and to remain a relevant community institution, the library enriches and encourages community members to take part in lifelong learning and to ensure every members right to be part of the global online information society.

Over the past 10 - 15 years public libraries have been involved in providing access to the online information environment through providing the infrastructure to do this. According to the survey taken by Bertot et al. (2009) they are often the only place within the community that allows for free access, training and services for the online information environment, ensuring that the digital divide is addressed for people without personal home access. It has also been found that during times of global financial hardships this access becomes even more important to ensure that the digital divide doesn't widen as a result of increased poverty.

Issues that arise in relation to providing these services include:
- hours open where these services are available
- staffing levels when budget cutbacks kick in
- the number of workstations available
- bandwidth available and affordable
- availability of wireless and patrons ability to provide their own laptop or wireless device
- need for Internet training
- time limits placed on the use of computers due to high demand
- impact of social networking behaviours on availability of computers

I think it is important to track and study changes in the provision of these services over time as patterns of usage and availability of infrastructure can help libraries to better attend to the needs of the public. I also think that information gathered during the Global Financial Crisis can show us needs and uses for these services in times of real hardship where the users have no where else to turn.


References:
Bertot, J. C., Jaeger, P.t., McClure, C. R., Wright, C. B., & Jensen, E. (2009). Public libraries and the Internet 2008-2009: Issues, implications, and challenges. First Monday, 14 (11) available http://firstmonday.org/htbin/cgiwrap/bin/ojs/index.php/fm/article/viewArticle/2700/2351

Digital trends

Over the years from the introduction of the Internet to Web 2.0 there have been many shifts in our usage behaviours surrounding developments in technology and social paradigms.

Internet technologies evolve rapidly and potential uses and power appears unending. With devices that allow for the rapid transfer of data of various formats by crowds of users, creativity flows and networks flourish.

Five examples noted from the 'Did You Know 4.0' You Tube clip were as follows:

1. The digital preference of information reflecting the trend of immediacy expected by users due to the capabilities of modern technology used in the information environment.

2. The enthusiasm to contribute and be a part of the global information world in a range of different and dynamic formats such as picture and video. Again the ease and speed of transferring data due to technologies available serve as encouragement.

3. The recognition by commercial entities that the online environment is where they can find and accurately target a wanted audience. Created by the technology and the openness associated with profiling and sharing with social networks.

4. Publishing models are changing from a commercial and discretionary role to an open framework for anyone willing to create. Open source software and content is widespread and contributes to the attitude of user ownership and continued contribution.

5. Portability of equipment and the web itself has changed considerably due to developments in the technological devices able to process data and use wireless networks throughout the globe.

Web 2.0, Comparison of 3 Libraries

A quick check on 3 libraries and their use of web 2.0 tools. To begin with I found that Libraries use a range of tools, ie - they don't all blog or use twitter. Larger libraries and academic libraries are far more likely to use these tools than the small suburban public libraries. That being said, responses varied and the pattern of collaboration that indicates the tool is web 2.0 was achieved to varying degrees. I assert from this that Web 2.0 tools can be downgraded to Web 1.0 tools if used in a way that does not engage the collaboration or conversation of its users and is merely another method to 'mail out' information.


Twitter appears to be the tool of choice for most libraries with short concise messages of a promotional or current affairs nature. Twitter was the only tool that the number of followers could be seen and noted, although it doesn't prove that the message is received, it does show interest.

All the blogs were constructed well and included mainly promotional material, the lack of comments for Charles Sturt University and UTS negates the collaborative effects however there are no measures to tell the usage, the blogs almost take on a bookmark effect highlighting resources but not giving the log (narration, opinion or creative aspect) or discussion. The State Library blogs that included expert knowledge engaged more comments than noted on the other blogs indicating that content has allot to do with the use of this tool and that blogs used for merely promotional purposes are not by nature collaborative.

The Live chat function included on most libraries can be considered a web 2.0 tool due to its instant messaging styles, conversation being a key pattern of web 2.0. Although restricted by hours and days, the hours appear to suit the university environment but I would have expected the larger state library to include more availability. Analysis of usage of these services would be required to make a more accurate assessment of their usefulness.

Web 2.0 tools are implemented to meet user needs, it appears that content is a key factor in the usefulness or to attract user engagement thus making the tool worthwhile. A 2.0 Library is a user expectation that must be analysed with particular focus on content and what the tools convey rather than the tools themselves.