INF506 Reflective Statement

A Web 2.0 Library is described as being user centered, providing a multimedia experience, is socially rich and is community innovative in changing with users and community.  (Maness, 2006, para 8)

When I started this unit in November 2010 I had no contact with Web 2.0 technologies.  Since then I have created a blog and a wiki.  I have had experience of Facebook, del.icio.us, Twitter and Second Life.  I’ve read a great deal about Web 2.0 technologies and seen how they apply to libraries and to people generally.  I’ve had the frustration of being without a computer for almost three weeks whilst various things were done to it and managing study in a public library.  I’ve become a fan of Web 2.0.

One of the most public faces of Web 2.0 technology is Second Life.  I can see the value in such things as HealthInfo Island (http://healthinfoisland.blogspot.com/2010/09/healthinfo-island-make-over.html) and Info Island (http://infoisland.org/about/).  However, to access this easily really up-to-date computer systems are required.  For the educational environment setting up a virtual meeting place can have its advantages particularly for distance education but I find the artificiality distracting.  However my experience of virtually gaming worlds is non-existent. I live in a limited web world.

My first enticement to Web 2.0 was a little widget called RSS.  Li (2008, p. 31) says a person using RSS can realistically subscribe to more blogs, monitor more social networking pages and generally stay connected more that other people. I think this widget is a wonderful tool that can be used by every library everywhere.  It does everything a good librarian wants – it gets information out to the client, it does it immediately and the client doesn’t have to make an effort to receive it. 

Facebook was used as the main communication tool throughout this unit.  I am accustomed to the use of subject forums which can vary from very good to very poor.  Facebook is an excellent tool for communication in this area.  As a person with a strong privacy code I find Facebook as a personal revelation daunting but used in this context it is an effective way of opening and keeping a dialogue going.  I can see it as a tool libraries can use to alert a diverse group on various areas.

Twitter is of course a quick alerting tool where the item of interest can be kept to 140 characters.  During the course this was shown to be used very effectively by libraries worldwide.

My project consisted of creating a wiki for the Mental Health Museum of W.A. of which I am secretary.  This was an elegant solution to a problem of preserving corporate knowledge and information in the rapidly aging population of this group.  Before doing this unit I would never have considered the concept of the wiki let alone the possibility of creating one.  As a librarian I am imbued with the concept of preservation of information but the creation of the wiki was a Web 2.0 solution to this problem since it allows collaboration of all the committee members and will be accessible online for the foreseeable future.

During the course of this unit the students were exposed to many technological tools.  Some of these are mostly useful in educational areas but a number can translate readily to library use.  Podcasting is a Web 2.0 tool that can enhance the effectiveness of teaching, for instance, how to access and search a database.  Most librarians undertake this task.

As with anything to do with the public there are always procedures and policies and legalities that must be followed.  Embracing Library 2.0 means covering the usual areas of confidentiality, privacy, copyright and all the rest with the addition of the permanency and publicity of online-publishing.  This requires careful consideration and well-developed social media policies.

One of the difficulties of bringing Web 2.0 to the library is how open the organization is to hosting it.  Most libraries are progressive in inclination from the first embracing of the catalogue on computer.  The difficulty is persuading management that it is worth while taking on.  Like most things in the library world this is best achieved by nibbling away at the edges of the difficulty until the goal of Library 2.0 is achieved.

Reference

Li, C. & Bernoff, J. (2008). Jujitsu and the technologies of the groundswell. In

Groundswell: winning in a world transformed by social technologies

(pp. 17-37). Boston, Mass.: Harvard Business Press.

Maness, J.M.  (2006). Library 2.0 theory: Web 2.0 and its implications for libraries. Webology, 3(2) June, 2006. Retrieved from http://www.webology.org/2006/v3n2/a25.html.

INF506 Evaluative Statement

Social networking is predicated on the 4Cs: collaboration, conversation, community, and content creation.  With the improvement of computer hardware and software and communication technology connectedness in the first world is continual and omnipresent.  Social networking tools cover the range of interactive and informational technologies.  These technologies can be alerting such as RSS feeds and Twitter; informational such as blogs and wikis and educational with podcasts or video streaming and web-conferencing.  There can be value adding with mashups and social interaction with Facebook, MySpace and Flickr.  These tools allow interactive functionality including social bookmarking such as del.icio.us, folksomonies and tagging, personal media such as MP3 files, personalization using my profile features and allowing all forms of commentary.

Maness (2006, para 38) describes Library 2.0 as a user centered, user driven mashup of traditional library and innovative Web 2.0 services rich in content interactivity, and social activity.

During the course of this unit the various technologies were examined and an understanding of how Web 2.0 could be introduced to a Web 1.0 library was developed.  Existing services can be extended by incorporating Web 2.0 technologies.  Email notification of reservations can be extended to text messaging (Hull, 2011, A-Z, para 3) or a RSS feed (Hull, 2011, Reasons, para 7).  Other ways of incorporating Web 2.0 don’t necessarily require funding just staff enthusiasm.  This can include using programs like LibraryThing to create a specialist list of texts, creating a list of good reads and texting it to clients or creating a presence on Facebook.  (Hull, 2011, A-Z, para 3-6)

 All good librarians are user focused.  Participatory library service extends this focus to enable clients to be part of the conversation.  These libraries use Web 2.0 tools to connect with people, information and ideas.  By using social networking tools such as blogging or Facebook comments are invited so the library is communicating more effectively. (Hull, 2011, Reasons, para 6)  The National Library of Australia offers a participatory library service since it utilizes blogs, Facebook, Twitter and RSS feeds.  (Hull, 2011, Reasons, para 4-5)

In a networked world there are a range of issues that need to be addressed.  Policy is intended to control activity and guide action.  Information policy is about the regulation of people, organizations and processes involved in information flow in society.  Some areas of interest are the creative commons, intellectual property, online safety, acceptable use of the internet, information access for all, trans-literacy and regulating the internet.  Age appropriate access is already addressed in most libraries regarding computer use and all libraries have policies regarding confidentiality and privacy.  Social media tools such as Facebook and MySpace blur the boundaries and encourage sharing of personal information.  Twitter has and immediacy that discards discretion.

A social media policy is a must in a Web 2.0 library. 

This needs to cover

·         the range of legal requirements such as business and enabling acts, records management requirements, discrimination, etc.;

·         copyright and permissions and all the requirements for lawful publishing;

·         confidentiality and privacy issues such as keeping corporate secrets and preserving proprietary information and respecting colleagues’ privacy;

·         correct online behaviour and etiquette with care about statements made, not causing or taking offense; and

·         taking responsibility for authorship, opinions and errors.  (Hull, 2011, Social Media Policy, para 3)

During this unit social networking technologies were interactively used to gain an understanding of their use and place in the Web 2.0 world.  This included bookmarking, virtual worlds, blogging, tweeting and using Facebook.  An understanding was developed of the social networking issues that require attention in the Web 20 environment.  Promoting Web 2.0 into the work environment and examining social issues also increased my understanding of social networking technologies.  These technologies will eventually be incorporated into most libraries in Australia.

Reference

Hull, R. (2011, January 22). A to Z. Message posted to http://robyn-robynhull.blogspot.com/.

Hull, R. (2011, January 30), Reasons why libraries should be on social media. Message posted to http://robyn-robynhull.blogspot.com/.

Hull, R. (2011, February 3). Social media policy. Message posted to http://robyn-robynhull.blogspot.com/.

Maness, J.M.  (2006). 2.0 Theory: Web 2.0 and its implications for libraries. Webology, 3(2) June, 2006. retrieved from http://www.webology.org/2006/v3n2/a25.html.

Social Media Policy

Most organizations have policies in place with regard to use of work communication devices.  There is a limit on private telephone calls, and using emails and the internet for personal business.  There are also rules about net-etiquette, flaming, etc.  These policies can be extended to cover social media.  Authorized personnel make announcements within strict guidelines.  These need to be considered as well.

Five points needing consideration for social media policies when employees are using Web 2.0 tools and spaces for work and personal use while using the organizations computers/network and time are:

1.  Legal – business and enabling acts, records management requirements, discrimination, etc.  These are part of business culture but need to be considered in the more relaxed environment of social media.

2.  Confidentiality – keeping corporate secrets and preserving colleagues’ privacy.  Disclosure policies can be incorporated and extended.

3.  Etiquette – watching what is said, not causing or taking offence, preserving the proprieties.  Correct behaviour is expected at work and should continue online.

4.  Responsibility – acknowledging authorship, own opinion, errors and correcting errors. 

5.  Publishing – all the requirements of publishing including copyright and getting permissions for photos etc. need to be listed.

Legal – none of the articles mentioned working to specific acts although anyone who works in government, health or law has their actions mandated by acts.  For instance public servants cannot comment on anything to do with their government.

Confidentiality – Anderson (2009, para 9), Lauby (2009, para 16) Kroski (2009, para 11) and IBM (2010, para 9) stressed the need for keeping proprietary secrets.

Etiquette – Lauby (2009, para 11), Kroski (2009, para 15) and IBM (2010, para 9) promote respectful attitudes for online discussion.

Responsibility – Lauby (2009, para 7), Kroski (2009, para 13) and IBM (2010, para 9) require acknowledgement of authorship.

Publishing – IBM (2010, para 9), Kroski (2009 para 13) and Lauby (2009, para 17) cover copyright requirements.

Reference

Anderson, J. (2009, April 8). Social media policies and museums. Indianapolis Museum of Art. Message posted to http://www.imamuseum.org/blog/2009/04/08/social-media-policies-museum.

IBM Social Computing Guidelines Blogs, wikis, social networks, virtual worlds and social media. (2010). Retrieved January 31, 2010 from http://www.ibm.com/blogs/zz/en/guidelines.html.

Kroski, E. (2009, October 1). Should your library have a social media policy? School Library Journal. Message posted to http://www.schoollibraryjournal.com/article/CA6699104.html.

Lauby, S. (2009, June 2). 10 Must-Haves for Your Social Media Policy, Mashable, 6 February. Message posted to http://mashable.com/2009/06/02/social-media-policy-musts/.

Online Privacy

Online identity is the persona that is presented to the world on the internet.  An organization will be very stringent about what and who present aspects of the organization to the world.

People allow different degrees of intrusion to their privacy.  As Pearson (2009, p. 72) states:

“The excessively prudent opt out.  The moderately prudent shut the hell up.  The extraverts gamble on un-interest or an implausibly generous reception.”

 Information used to be gathered by big brother and tucked away in government databases.  Now it is big business that is doing the gathering.

Teens (major users of Facebook) have addressed the issue of privacy with a shift to privacy pragmatism where a social benefit outweighs the loss of some privacy.  (Raynes-Goldie, 2010, para 18)  Teens managed such things as inappropriate friend requests and managed privacy by using an alias or often deleting wall posts and photo tags.  (Raynes-Goldie, 2010, para 10-11)   Facebook is necessary since the social consequence of not being on is being left out of the communication loop.  (Raynes-Goldie, 2010, para 22)

Adults considering privacy issues have a broader range of concerns.  Activities online range from banking, investment, homes emails (very private), to search engines, social networking sites, social media, online books stores ( less private), and library websites (least private).  (De Rosa, Cantrell, Havens, Hawk, & Jenkins, 2007, p. 3.8)  In a survey of over 10,000 comments very few respondents indicated concerns of privacy from non-fraudulent sources.  (De Rosa, et al., 2007 p. 3.7)

However, every time an action occurs online it is recorded somewhere.  So care needs to be taken that financial information doesn’t go over an unsecured line, that personal details such as a home address or private telephone number isn’t placed in a public forum, that teens are taught to be circumspect in what they put on their profiles and that they don’t accept friend s in a social networking site if they aren’t familiar with them and children that they shouldn’t go online without adult approval.  Institutions have rules and policies concerning information being made public and people need to make rules as well.

 

Reference

De Rosa, C., Cantrell, J., Havens, A., Hawk, J. & Jenkins, L. (2007). Section 3: Privacy, Security and Trust. In Sharing privacy and trust in our networked world: A report to the OCLC membership. Dublin, Ohio: OCLC.  http://www.oclc.org/reports/pdfs/sharing_part3.pdf

Pearson, J. (2009). Life as a dog: Personal identity and the internet. Meanjin, 68(2), 67-77. Retrieved from http://search.informit.com.au/fullText;dn=200906244;res=APAFT

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

Reasons Why Libraries Should be on Social Media

Harvey (2009, para 6) states that new technologies should not be used because they’re new and fun to use.  She notes that questions to an audience aged from 18-29 revealed that they experimented with new tools but used a limited few on a regular basis.  (Harvey, 2009, para 10) Social networking tools (SNT) cover a range from blogs, wikis, Facebook, MySpace, YouTube, Twitter, del.icio.us, RSS feeds, podcasts and so on. What social media should libraries use?  It depends on their users.  Wikis can be used for internal projects and del.icio.us to set up bookmarks for a journal club.  Every library can use RSS feeds for alerting whether to emails or phones.

Collaboration, conversation, community and context creation are the 4C’s of social networking.  This comes back to communication which is a main reason for using SNT.

The three libraries chosen were national (National Library of Australia [NLA], http://www.nla.gov.au), state public (State Library of W.A. [SLWA], http://www.slwa.wa.gov.au) and university (Charles Sturt University [CSU], http://www.csu.edu.au/division/library). 

RSS feeds were used by all three libraries from their blogs and the NLA from Facebook.  A blog is an alerting tool that can cover a wide range of new happenings, list newly acquired items, changes occurring within the library, etc.  It puts a human face to the library, makes it approachable and is a good promotional tool.  NLA and CSU have three subject blogs and the SLWA one.  It is also a way of marketing/advertising that will reach a more diverse audience.  (Burkhardt, 2009, para 4.)

Other prominent communication tools are Facebook, MySpace or Twitter.  Does a medical or law library need a profile on Facebook or MySpace.  Would their clients use Twitter?   On the other hand would students be without it.   The NLA and CSU both use Twitter with 2349 and 337 followers respectively.  The NLA (1561 likes) and SLWA (309 likes) use Facebook.  Having a space where comments can be left gives clients useful feedback access, and librarian’s better understanding of their clients.

Reasons to use SNT are connecting to a wider audience, communicating well, serving clients more effectively and responding to feedback.

Reference

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.

Andy Burkhardt’s (2009, August 25). Four reasons libraries should be on social media. Message posted to http://andyburkhardt.com/2009/08/25/four-reasons-libraries-should-be-on-social-media/.

A to Z

The five items I chose are A, F, G, L and T to bring the Library to Web 2.0.

The Riverton Library (http://canning.wa.gov.au/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=94&Itemid=61) is a public library that embraces Web 1.0 and uses it competently.  It offers online access to the catalogue (Amlib) so clients can view and select books online, place reservations for books and renew their loans online.  There are online request forms to obtain interlibrary loans.  There is a bank of fourteen computers that can be reserved for clients to access the internet free and non-clients can pay for access.  They can email notification that a reservation has arrived.  The library is mention in Wikipedia but has no other Web 2.0 presence.

T- text messaging.  Since the library already emails arrival of reservations, texting to mobiles should not be a difficult step to take.  A site like BusinessTechnologyGuide.com.au lists a number of ways of using SMS to mobile phones from computers and some of these are at no extra charge.

G – good reads.  New items received into the library are placed on display and there is a process whereby clients can purchase early one week access to new titles.  Setting up a list of like-authors or creating a list of reviews when selecting exchanges to post as a good read is a reasonable step.

L - LibraryThing.  This could be built up over a period of time to list the permanent collection within the library and as a list to let clients know what is part of the library’s special collection.  In W.A. the public library stock rotates every six weeks and an exchange moves some of the collection from suburb.

F – Facebook.  There are computer savvy people working in the library so setting up a page on Facebook is certainly possible as far as skills are concerned.  It would require a passionate person to promote the idea initially to get is past the administrators.  Since Facebook is free it would require only staff time.

A – Active.  Once Facebook and text messaging have been embraced other social media technologies will seem more enticing.  Setting up a RSS feed for listing new titles placed on LibraryThing and alerting for new social activities within the library are just some of the activities that can be embraced.

Reference

Brown, A.  (2010, January 22). A to Z of social networking for Libraries Posted to http://socialnetworkinglibrarian.com/2010/01/22/a-to-z-of-social-networking-for-libraries/.

ASU

The 4 Cs of social networking consist of collaboration, conversation, community and context creation (co-creation).  Within the ANU many of the Web 2.0 social networking themes have been embraced.  The library minute videos cover many of the 4 Cs particularly conversation where the client is encouraged to contact the library to inform them of their needs.  The minute videos cover many aspects of utilizing the libraries resources but two items outside ‘normal’ library items use Web 2.0 technologies.

The first of these is the musical databases that stream music to the clients desktop while studying (http://lib.asu.edu/librarychannel/).  This music can be selected from the music clip guide and there is a link to a free download to iTunes10 arranged for Arizona State University to manage the music stream.

The second is the Twitter (http://twitter.com/LibraryChannel) account which gives news of current occurrences within the ASU Library such as unexpected closures and has a RSS feed to allow updates to be sent automatically to clients.

Miller (2005) discusses working for the user and Casey and Savastinuk (2006) discuss the long tail and these items follow their precepts.  The music stream during studying is a conversation of care for the clients and enhances the feeling of a community.  Having an account on Twitter where a tweet on an unexpected library closure will certainly be re-tweeted to many others who may not have direct access enforces all aspects of accessing the long tail. 

This library is using the 4 Cs of social networking in a very skilled manner.  It is contacting a wide audience and creating a strong community.

Reference

Miller, P. (2005). Web 2.0: Building the new library, Ariadne, 45, 30 October. Retrieved from http://www.ariadne.ac.uk/issue45/miller

Casey, M. & Savastinuk, L. (2006). Library 2.0: Service for the next-generation library, Library Journal, 1 September. Retrieved from http://www.libraryjournal.com/article/CA6365200.html