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.

Librarian 2.0

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