Introduction
'I have always imagined the information space
as something to which everyone has immediate and intuitive access, and not just
to browse, but to create.' Tim Berners-Lee. The World Wide Web has grown
significantly since it’s invention, and it is a powerful, unparalleled tool in
enabling people in every country in the world publish and share information.
Web 2.0 is not a new technology; the term is used to describe a new way of
using the World Wide Web in an interactive and collaborative manner. Web 2.0
has been around for roughly five years, and is the read and write platform of
the web (Butterworth, 2011, Lecture 05). The web World Wide Web has been around
since the 1990s, but Web 2.0 became prevalent in the 2000’s. With the onset of
web 2.0 technologies, into the library dynamic, it has changed how library
users access and interact with information sources.
Web 2.0 a
brief look
Web 2.0 has quickly moved into the
public consciousness as being a label to describe a collection of websites and
online services; such as Wikipedia, Facebook, Blogs, MashUps, Twitter and
YouTube to name a few. But it is the characteristics of Web 2.0 that gains it’s
distinction from Web 1.0, Tim Berners-Lee describes his story of
developing the web in his book weaving the web, in which he explains how he was
creating a way to share information. Another
function of Web 2.0 is that it essentially erases the line between author and
publisher. Anyone can now have an online voice, with very little effort or
technical ability, and for free. This voice isn’t just limited to sharing
words, but also images, video, music and links. In a practical environment, for
instance within a School Library, Web 2.0 can be implemented through the use of
wikis and blogs, encouraging students and faculty to utilize these developing
technologies fosters and provides wider knowledge growth. Ideas and thoughts
can be shared on topics; students seem to gravitate to social media so
capitalizing on this venture helps to modernize the library. Thus the development
of Library 2.0 which is a loosely defined model for a modernized form of library service
that reflects a transition within the library world in the way that services
are delivered to users.
Library
2.0
“Library 2.0” is a term that was first coined by Michael Casey in his
blog, Library Crunch and is now widely used by librarians and information
professionals. Library 2.0 can be seen as a two-way service. It takes the
information to the users, but allows them the opportunity to become more
involved with the library’s services by providing feedback. (Curran, Murray,
and Christian 2007).
With Web 1.0, machine readable data could be
digitally presented, evolution continued to Web 2.0 and this allowed for data
to be read, written, edited and removed online, the third progression was Web
3.0 brings about the onset of Cloud computing, which are the technologies that
provide computation, software, data access, and storage services and they do
not require end-user knowledge of the physical location and configuration of
the system that delivers the services. Library 2.0 depicts the progress of
library services, within a world that is progressively being digitised and made
relatively accessible in even the most remote of areas. The induction of
‘Library 2.0’ can be seen across all library sectors, and it also presents its
users with various options in accessing information and services virtually. Library
2.0 for all intents and purposes can be described as making your library’s
space more interactive, collaborative, and driven by community needs. NALIS,
which is the National Library service within Trinidad and Tobago, have begun to
implement the technological advancements within the constructs of the library
system. Thus attempting to incorporate the classic library functions, but also
broadening the scope to the inclusion of digital libraries. Hopefully this progression
would soon reflect the concept of ‘five libraries’ as stated by Gambles, which includes
the connected library, the virtual library, the logical library, the
self-service library, and the extended library (Gambles, 2010). The connected
library addresses the necessity of user accessibility through mobile and Web
2.0 technologies. The virtual library centres on access to digital
content and material. The logical library refers to what is physical-the
library building itself, the physical material within the building and the
available library staff. The self-service library focuses on activities within
the library that don’t involve the staff, such as printing, access to computers
and kiosks. The extended library speaks to the need of libraries needing to be
involved with community, funding and sponsorships (Gambles, 2010). This
concept of “the five libraries” includes the traditional aspects of the
library, while embracing technology to the libraries best
advantage.
Libraries
allow access to information collected through their materials, traditionally
through read-only catalogues, however they now provide online portals that
add-value to the same information by encouraging user participation and
feedback with those resources through integrated web 2.0 technologies. Brophy
(2007) argues that the ‘long tail’ effect, that of more and more users
joining up to a service provided over the same network thus adding value for
each user, is how the idea of web 2.0 marries with digital libraries in the
creation of ‘Library 2.0’.
How Web 2.0 has
affected Libraries and how they function.
Chad and
Miller (2005) believe that Library 2.0 could change the way librarians serve
and interact with library patrons by making information available whenever and
wherever the user needs it. It should be stated that the concept of Library 2.0
is not about replacing traditional library services, but rather, adding
additional functionality to them. Maness (2006) identified four key elements of
Library 2.0, where it can be said that, it is user-centered in that users participate in the creation of
the content and services they view on the library’s web site, OPAC, etc. It provides a multi-media experience; both
the collections and services of Library 2.0 contain audio and video. This
change is especially evident within the School Library system within Trinidad
and Tobago where the library services and the Audio visual department have
teamed up to provide a richer learning environment. It is socially rich; the library's
web-presence includes users' presences. There are both synchronous (e.g.
Instant Messaging) and asynchronous (e.g.wikis) ways for users to communicate
with one another and with librarians. It is communally innovative. This basis of this principle rests on the idea that
a library is a community service, and that as communities change, libraries
must also change as well as allow users to change the library. It seeks to find
new ways for communities of users, not just individual users, to find and use
information
Miller (2005), an
advocate of Library 2.0, argues that if libraries want to remain useful to
their patrons they must engage in Web 2.0 technologies. He claims that:
"Leveraging the
approaches typified by Web 2.0’s principles and technology offers libraries
many opportunities to serve their existing audiences better, and to reach out
beyond the walls and web sites of the institution to reach potential beneficiaries
where they happen to be, and in association with the task they happen to be
undertaking." (Miller 2005)
Conclusion
Consumer driven needs shape the advancements
we see taking place within Technology. While
computers can adapt to user
preferences, they definitely cannot react to changing human values and thus cannot
be completely pre-programmed. While the digital landscape has changed by Web
2.0, the core function of a library of assisting users has remained the same Traditional
libraries and their human counterparts, will always be a necessary feature in
providing and supporting the online resources. So it can be safe to say, the
custodial responsibility that librarians have held has not changed with the
onset of the internet and is not irrelevant (Feather, 2008, p.180). They add
and aid the user with their information searches face-to-face within defined
real-world environments. Therefore as technology develops and moves beyond that
of Web 2.0 to Web 3.0 in the future, it
is significant that library and information professionals continue to utilize
technology within their libraries.
Works Cited
Anderson, C. (2004) The Long Tail, Wired
(blog), [online] available at:http://web.archive.org/web/20041127085645/www.wired.com/wired/archive/12.10/tail.html
Baeza-Yates, R., and Ribeiro-Neto, B. (2011) Modern
information retrieval : the concepts and technology behind search. 2nd ed.
London: Pearson Education.
Baker, D. (2008) From needles and haystacks to
elephants and fleas: strategic information management in the information age, New
Review of Academic Librarianship, 14: 1–16 [online] via LISTA, accessed 31st October
2011.
Butterworth, R. (2011), Lecture 05 -Because
All Your Friends Live Inside Your Computer, INM348 Digital Information
Technologies and Architectures. [online] City University London available at
<http://moodle.city.ac.uk/mod/resource/view.php?id=267321>
Butterworth, R. (2011), Lecture 07 – Mobile
Information. [online] City University London available at <
http://moodle.city.ac.uk/mod/resource/view.php?id=267335>
Brophy,
Peter (2007), The Library in
the twenty-first Century 2nd ed, London: Facet Publishing
Casey, M. (2005) Librarians Without
Borders, [online] available at:http://www.librarycrunch.com/2005/09/
Casey,
M. & Savastinuk, L. (2006). “Library 2.0: Service for the
next-generation library.”Library Journal.
Chad,
K. and Miller, P. (2005). “Do
Libraries Matter?”. White
paper.
http://www.talis.com/applications/downloads/white_papers/DoLibrariesMatter.pdf
Curran, K., Murray, M., and Christian, M. (2006). “Taking the information to the
public through Library 2.0”. Library Hi Tech. Vol. 25, No. 2. pp.288-297.
Chowdhury, G.G and Chowdhury, S. (2003) Organizing
information - from the shelf to the web. London: Facet Publishing.
Chu, H. (2010) Information representation
and retrieval in the digital age. 2nd ed. Medford, New Jersey:
Information Today, Inc.
City University Library website, [online]
available at: http://www.city.ac.uk/library/
Coles, C. (1998) Information seeking behaviour
of public library users: use and non-use of electronic media. In: Wilson,
T.D. and Allen, D.A., ed. 1999. Exploring the contexts of information
behaviour. London: Taylor Graham Publishing, 321-329
Feather, J. (2008), The Information
Society: A Study of Continuity and Change, London: Facet Publishing
Gambles, B. (2010), Rewriting the Book: On the Move in
the Library of Birmingham. Ariadne, Issue 64. http://www.ariadne.ac.uk/issue64/gambles/
Miller,
P. (2005). “Web 2.0: Building
the New Library”. Ariadne.
Issue 45. October 30, 2005.
MacFarlane Andy, Richard Butterworth, and Jason
Dykes (2011), “Lecture 05: Web 2.0 -- Because all your friends
live inside your computer” INM348
Digital Information Technologies and Architectures, London : City University
Maness Jack
M MLS, (2006).
“Library 2.0 Theory: Web 2.0 and Its Implications for Libraries”
University of Colorado at Boulder Libraries, Boulder,
CO, USA.
O’Reilly,
T. (2005). “What is Web 2.0?” O’Reilly Media,
Pinfield, S., Eaton, J., Edwards, C., Russell,
R., Wissenberg, A., and Wynne, P. (1998)Realizing the hybrid library, D-Lib
Information Magazine, October 1998, [online] available at:http://www.dlib.org/dlib/october98/10pinfield.html
Reynolds, D., Shabajee, P and Cayzer, S.
(2004) Semantic information portals, [online] available at: http://www2004.org/proceedings/docs/2p290.pdf
Van Dijk, J. (1999) The network society :
social aspects of media [translated by Leontine Spoorenberg]. London: Sage
Publications.
Sarah Houghton-John, ‘Library 2.0: Michael
Squared dated December 2005. See:http://librarianinblack.net/librarianinblack/2005/12/library_20_disc.html
No comments:
Post a Comment