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.