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.
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.
Essential knowledge, skills and attributes of of an information professional in a Web 2.0 world:
I think number one is to be curious and cautious, adventurous yet careful, about new technologies and the needs and uses of them in the particular library environment you are in.
I think flexibility and experimentation can be bolstered by analysis and research into both user needs and behaviours along with analysis and trials of the technology. At the same time, as Meredith Farkas (2007) has pointed out, we should not strive to be perfectionists, what I am suggesting is that it should more of a trial and error learning method rather than a hit and miss. Trial and error indicating more of a experimental approach involving hypothesis, theory and practical application and responsiveness to feedback and experiments, whereas a hit and miss approach suggests a reckless adoption of all technology or as Meredith Farkas (2007) describes "techno lust".
Librarian 2.0 must be aware and eager to learn and teach new technologies, and be aware that they may be part of a bigger picture. That the technology they use today may have to be discarded and replaced or accompanied with something new regardless of our attachment. I personally log straight onto my face book site whenever I sit down to the computer, but I still check my emails (considered a web 1.0 tool). This means we must have the ability to develop with web 2.0 whilst using a range of tools that meet the needs or preferences of the users.
I think also that time needs to be devoted to the upkeep and collaborative function of all web 2.0 tools, if we have to do it on top of everything we already do, or if its not considered a priority, then great tools can be left by the wayside and considered useless. This points out that we must facilitate their uptake and continued use and relevancy through dynamic, innovative and appealing content.
We need to be up with whats hot, not just with web 2.0 tools but with hardware, using Ipads, phones, laptops, and any other gadget that's out there to draw in users. My sons DSi has wireless internet connectivity plus he can make and edit small videos on it (not to mention online gaming capabilities), put the two together and we engage our youth. Its important to know hardware and software tools to offer complete relevancy.
The long tail and the digital divide were also two points brought up in Harvey (2009). To reach the long tail, there is a greater reason to be gadget and web 2.0 savvy as mentioned above. More and more our society's individuals are moving away from the mainstream, as seen in the recent Australian federal election. I think this is a trend we will see more of, and the range of technology and tools available supports this individuality and specialisation. No longer do we just have an email address (an indiscreet letterbox) but we have profiles which build a picture of our personalities, beliefs, wants, needs and sentiments.
The digital divide is always an issue that libraries will be involved with. In response to user needs, much of the floorspace is devoted to providing the facilities for users to get connected. I think libraries need to be more innovative in this area too, providing not only computers but the use of more portable Ipads or laptops, kindles etc that can be used throughout the library, opening up the digital experience to all of its users.
Abrams, S. (2007). Web 2.0, Library 2.0 and Librarian 2.0: Preparing for the 2.0 world found at http://2009.online-information.co.uk/files/freedownloads.new_link1.1080622103251.pdf
Farkas, M. (2007). Building academic library 2.0.Symposium of Librarians Association of the University of California retrieved from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q_uOKFhoznI
Harvey, M. (2009). What does it mean to be a Science Librarian 2.0? Issues in Science and Technology Librarianship, (Summer). Retrieved from http://www.istl.org/09-summer/article2.html
