Today I learnt about a term that I never knew existed - self plagiarism. I understand that plagiarism is when an author copies the ideas or work of another author and pretends that is their own work without correctly citing the original author's work. However, the idea of self plagiarism is new to me.
According to PR Newswire (2011) this is a growing concern in scholarly research. The definition of self-plagiarism is " a type of plagiarism in which the writer republishes a work in its entirety or reuses portions of a previously written text while authoring a new work" (iThenticate, 2011). This is a topic that is hotly debated as some authors believe that it is not possible to self-plagiarize if they are using their own ideas and words. The American Psychological Association explain the difference between the two “Whereas
plagiarism refers to the practice of claiming credit for the words, ideas, and concepts of others, self-plagiarism
refers to the practice of presenting one’s own previously published work as though it were new” (American Psychological Association, cited in iThenticate, 2011).
To avoid self-plagiarizing an author must cite their own work correctly, but must ensure that they do not use large portions of their own text, even if it is quoted and cited correctly. It is not specifically stated how much a large portion is. The reason for this is that the author will infringe copyright if they have signed over rights to their publisher (iThenticate, 2011, p.2). Authors must also let the reader know that they have used this information before (iThenticate, p.1).
It is therefore in the author's best interest to become familiar with copyright laws. As students we must be also be aware of copyright laws and take care when writing assignment.
References
PR Newswire. (2011). iThenticate examines "The ethics of self-plagiarism" in New White Paper. Retrieved from http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/ithenticate-examines-the-ethics-of-self-plagiarism-in-new-white-paper-128586423.html
iThenticate. (2011). White Paper: The ethics of self-plagiarism. Retrieved from http://www.ithenticate.com/Portals/92785/media/ith-selfplagiarism-whitepaper.pdf
Tuesday, 30 August 2011
Sunday, 28 August 2011
Get Reading! 2011
This week is the start of "Australia's largest annual celebration of books and reading". It is a month-long, nationwide campaign by the Australian Government and is developed through the Australia Council for the Arts. This campaign is to encourage more Australians to read books.
This years' Get Reading! campaign runs from Monday, 29th August to Thursday, 30th September. There are a range of events and promotions. One event is a FREE book given to those people who buy one of the books listed in the guide 50 Books You Can't Put Down. This is a free guide that is distributed by book retailers, libraries and online.
The guide features a wide range of genres, including adult fiction, adult non-fiction, young adult, children's fiction and picture books.
So, take a look at http://www.getreading.com.au/ and
This years' Get Reading! campaign runs from Monday, 29th August to Thursday, 30th September. There are a range of events and promotions. One event is a FREE book given to those people who buy one of the books listed in the guide 50 Books You Can't Put Down. This is a free guide that is distributed by book retailers, libraries and online.
The guide features a wide range of genres, including adult fiction, adult non-fiction, young adult, children's fiction and picture books.
So, take a look at http://www.getreading.com.au/ and
Friday, 19 August 2011
Encouraging the Digital Economy and Digital Citizenship
Missingham, R. (2009). Encouraging the digital economy and digital citizenship. Australian Library Journal, 58(4), 386-399.
The article Encouraging the Digital Economy and Digital Citizenship was written by Parliamentary Librarian, Roxanne Missingham, and is based on a presentation to the Australian Library and Information Association Public Libraries Summit. This review will outline the main purpose of this article which is to highlight the importance of every Australian having equitable access to relevant, quality digital information and government services using broadband access. Overall the article is a thorough and authoritative insight into the current state of Australia’s digital environment.
Missingham states that the libraries’ definition of an Australian citizen encompasses the “participation in government and the economy via the digital environment” (p. 386) based on outcomes from the Government’s 2.0 Taskforce and the Australia’s Digital Economy: Future Directions Final Report. The author considers the challenges and achievements of libraries in supporting Australians in becoming digital citizens. Establishing Electronic Resources Australia (ERA) is one achievement that Missingham uses to explain how Australian libraries (local, state and national) are providing citizens with content relevant to Australian people’s lives.
The headings of each part of the main body of the article are made up of questions. Their answers cover key issues about ERA that are discussed in the article. These include information about the current state of access to digital resources in Australia, the key resources that can be found online, the reasons why Australians need access to quality information, and information on how libraries have worked together to help Australians secure access to quality online information.
Missingham concludes this article by asserting three criteria needed to create digital citizens, and states how libraries and the Federal Government are responding to the barriers they confront. These criteria are connectivity to the internet, the content available on the internet, and the capacity of citizens to use these resources. Missingham stresses the final criteria by stating that even with ready access to broadband and quality information, Australians can only become digital natives if digital and information literacy skills are addressed. She points out that public libraries are actively delivering such programs but to be more effective, national funding is urgently needed.
Missingham presents an informative article full of relevant material on the background of government and library digital initiatives and the current state of the digital environment in Australia. By using relevant statistical data about technology adoption, Australia can easily be compared to the United Kingdom and Canada. The use of a personal account of someone living in rural Australia, gives the article a more humane side to Missingham’s argument.
The author makes a valid argument in saying that libraries play a vital role in providing education and relevant content to citizens. 46% of the Australian population does not have basic literacy skills for everyday life (Hutley, 2011) and there is no use connecting the population to broadband if people don’t have appropriate content or the skills to use it (UNESCO, 2005). ERA’s principal goal is based on the National Library of Australia’s belief that the general community should have free and equitable access to a wide range of relevant information resources. (National Licensing Forum, 2005). Libraries also provide access to technology that many community members cannot afford and ongoing education to ensure “they won’t get left behind as digital citizens” (Hutley, p. 13). This in turn allows Australian libraries to support communities, education and business (National Library of Australia, 2007).
It is interesting to note that Missingham does not use the widely adopted term ‘digital divide’ when speaking of the gap between people with effective access to digital and information technology and those with limited or no access. This article focuses on information challenges due to geographical location and literacy skills and briefly mentions accessibility for disabled people. UNESCO points out that “nobody should be excluded from knowledge societies” (2005, p.18). The key mistake in Missingham’s article is that she excludes socio-economic, age, gender, language, culture and employment divides, particularly after she makes the impossible claim that Australia needs to work hard to achieve “universal access”(p. 387). As digital technologies often increase inequalities (Borgman, 2000), the government must address these issues promptly. The Federal Communications Minister, Stephen Conroy acknowledged this week that the Internet gives Australians many opportunities but the government must be aware that “if we leave people behind, the isolation will be even greater” (“The New Order”, 2011).
Missingham is a reliable source of information and gives a valuable insight into the current digital economy. This article presents a clear and credible argument for the need to develop information literacy and provide relevant content, and the challenges involved.
References
Borgman, C. (2000). The premise and the promise of a global information infrastructure. In From Gutenborg to the Global Information Infrastructure: Access to Information in the Network World (pp. 1-31). Cambridge: MIT Press.
Hutley, S. (2011). Where’s the strategy?. Incite, 32(1), 13-14. Retrieved from http://www.alia.org.au/publishing/incite/2011/01-02/broadband.strategy.pdf
Missingham, R. (2009). Encouraging the digital economy and digital citizenship. Australian Library Journal, 58(4), 386-399. Retrieved from http://alia.org.au/publishing/alj/
National Licensing Forum. (2005). Making online information for all Australians a reality: A proposal by the National Licensing Reference Group to all Australian Libraries. Retrieved from http://www.nla.gov.au/initiatives/meetings/sitelicense/nlproposal.html
National Library of Australia. (2007). A New Era Dawns for Electronic Resources in Australia. Retrieved from http://www.nla.gov.au/media-releases/a-new-era-dawns-for-electronic-resources-in-australia
The New Order: The Haves and the Digital Have-nots. (2011). The Age. Retrieved August 17, 2011 from http://www.theage.com.au/technology/technology-news/the-new-order-the-haves-and-the-digital-havenots-20110817-1ixpb.html
UNESCO. (2005). Towards Knowledge Societies: UNESCO World Report. Retrieved from http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0014/001418/141843e.pdf
This Youtube video explains what the National Broadband Network is and why it is important for Australians.
Documenting the Global Conversation: Relevancy of Libraries in a Digital World
Heath, F. (2009). Documenting the global conversation: Relevancy of libraries in a digital world. Journal of Library Administration, 49 (5), 519-532.
This review examines Heath’s article Documenting the Global Conversation: Relevancy of Libraries in a Digital World. The article discusses the relevancy and purpose of research libraries in the digital world and the steps that the University of Texas (UT) Libraries have taken in order to survive. Heath, who is director of the UT Libraries, argues that rather than feeling threatened by digital technologies, libraries need to embrace them. The author also considers the impact of these technologies on university libraries. Overall this article has some useful ideas and gives an interesting insight into the steps that UT Libraries are taking to remain relevant in this digital world.
Heath compares research libraries with other information sectors and analyses how these other sectors are responding to advances in technology and difficulties with the global economy. To support the idea that research libraries are being threatened by technological advances, Heath continues by listing a number of disruptive changes impacting on research libraries. He adds that the reader must not be overcome by this pessimism and proceeds to describe strategies the UT Libraries are taking to help them survive.
Heath presents five strategies that the UT Libraries are taking in order to remain relevant. The first involves instruction librarians developing new approaches to increase undergraduate students’ information literacy skills. Student information literacy skills have not increased (Tenopir and Ennis, 2001), and since 1997 more universities have incorporated information literacy skills into their educational requirements (Applegate, 2007). The second strategy is to keep reference librarians important by asking them to help build useful information navigation systems. Moyo (2004) reiterates Heath’s view that for research libraries to remain relevant they need to provide services to patrons by facilitating access and navigation to electronic resources and provide support services that allow for optimal use of information. The third strategy is to keep the number of collections at library branches the same and storing less-used resources in a communal, remote storage facility. This allows library buildings to be used as more of an “interactive meeting space” (p. 528).
The fourth strategy is to continue acquiring and sharing ‘distinctive’ resources to allow the UT to continue to be considered a preeminent university. The UT Libraries will also provide patrons with relevant and vetted resources. UT Libraries’ final strategy involves giving patrons access to search tools on the World Wide Web beyond their own library collections. It also involves working with other university communities in building a federated institutional repository.
The article suggests that research libraries must remain on task if they want to stay relevant. Heath believes that if research libraries continue “doing the things they do best” (p. 526), they will be seen by patrons as an indispensible ally in information seeking.
How convincing though, is Heath’s argument that libraries remain relevant in a digital world? First of all the title of this article is about libraries in general, it does not specify research libraries. This title is misleading as the libraries that Heath discusses are mainly research libraries.
Secondly, Heath mainly talks about libraries at the University of Texas. The author has assumed that all research libraries around the world are similar to the UT Libraries. Applegate states however, that not all academic libraries are alike (p. 176). We also need to consider the evidence that Heath draws on to support his view. There are few figures or actual studies cited about libraries, which means it cannot be relied upon as it is not a true academic study.
A final questionable aspect of this article is that although this author is director of the UT Libraries and has written other academic papers, the fact that it is written in the vernacular and uses rhetorical questions makes it read like a conference paper. The reader is therefore less inclined to take the article seriously. Although this article has some useful information, it lacks original ideas.
Despite these criticisms, Heath’s article still has some value. It is not intended to be a rigorous academic article, but mainly to assist understanding of the strategies UT Libraries use to remain relevant in the future. What this article does add to the literature is to allow the reader an insider’s view of an academic library. It would be interesting if the author now carried out an evidence-based study of how relevant the UT Libraries are at present compared to whether they remain relevant in ten years’ time.
The University of Texas Libraries held a Library Video Contest and asked students to make a short video or animation that the libraries could use to promote their resources and services. This animation is one of the five winning entries.
Thanks Ramona!
This review examines Heath’s article Documenting the Global Conversation: Relevancy of Libraries in a Digital World. The article discusses the relevancy and purpose of research libraries in the digital world and the steps that the University of Texas (UT) Libraries have taken in order to survive. Heath, who is director of the UT Libraries, argues that rather than feeling threatened by digital technologies, libraries need to embrace them. The author also considers the impact of these technologies on university libraries. Overall this article has some useful ideas and gives an interesting insight into the steps that UT Libraries are taking to remain relevant in this digital world.
Heath compares research libraries with other information sectors and analyses how these other sectors are responding to advances in technology and difficulties with the global economy. To support the idea that research libraries are being threatened by technological advances, Heath continues by listing a number of disruptive changes impacting on research libraries. He adds that the reader must not be overcome by this pessimism and proceeds to describe strategies the UT Libraries are taking to help them survive.
Heath presents five strategies that the UT Libraries are taking in order to remain relevant. The first involves instruction librarians developing new approaches to increase undergraduate students’ information literacy skills. Student information literacy skills have not increased (Tenopir and Ennis, 2001), and since 1997 more universities have incorporated information literacy skills into their educational requirements (Applegate, 2007). The second strategy is to keep reference librarians important by asking them to help build useful information navigation systems. Moyo (2004) reiterates Heath’s view that for research libraries to remain relevant they need to provide services to patrons by facilitating access and navigation to electronic resources and provide support services that allow for optimal use of information. The third strategy is to keep the number of collections at library branches the same and storing less-used resources in a communal, remote storage facility. This allows library buildings to be used as more of an “interactive meeting space” (p. 528).
The fourth strategy is to continue acquiring and sharing ‘distinctive’ resources to allow the UT to continue to be considered a preeminent university. The UT Libraries will also provide patrons with relevant and vetted resources. UT Libraries’ final strategy involves giving patrons access to search tools on the World Wide Web beyond their own library collections. It also involves working with other university communities in building a federated institutional repository.
The article suggests that research libraries must remain on task if they want to stay relevant. Heath believes that if research libraries continue “doing the things they do best” (p. 526), they will be seen by patrons as an indispensible ally in information seeking.
How convincing though, is Heath’s argument that libraries remain relevant in a digital world? First of all the title of this article is about libraries in general, it does not specify research libraries. This title is misleading as the libraries that Heath discusses are mainly research libraries.
Secondly, Heath mainly talks about libraries at the University of Texas. The author has assumed that all research libraries around the world are similar to the UT Libraries. Applegate states however, that not all academic libraries are alike (p. 176). We also need to consider the evidence that Heath draws on to support his view. There are few figures or actual studies cited about libraries, which means it cannot be relied upon as it is not a true academic study.
A final questionable aspect of this article is that although this author is director of the UT Libraries and has written other academic papers, the fact that it is written in the vernacular and uses rhetorical questions makes it read like a conference paper. The reader is therefore less inclined to take the article seriously. Although this article has some useful information, it lacks original ideas.
Despite these criticisms, Heath’s article still has some value. It is not intended to be a rigorous academic article, but mainly to assist understanding of the strategies UT Libraries use to remain relevant in the future. What this article does add to the literature is to allow the reader an insider’s view of an academic library. It would be interesting if the author now carried out an evidence-based study of how relevant the UT Libraries are at present compared to whether they remain relevant in ten years’ time.
References
Applegate, R. (2007). Whose decline? Which academic libraries are “deserted” in terms of reference transactions? Reference and User Services Quarterly. 48(2), p. 176-189. American Library Association.
Heath, F. (2009). Documenting the global conversation: Relevancy of libraries in a digital world. Journal of Library Administration, 49 (5), 519-532. Retrieved from http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wjla20
Moyo, L. M. (2004). The virtual patron. Science & Technology Libraries, 30(12), 12-13. Retrieved from http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals/WSTL
Tenopir, C., & Ennis, L. A. (2001). Reference services in the new millennium. Online, 25(4), 40. Retrieve from http://www.onlineinc.com/onlinemag
Watson, L. (2010). The future of the library as a place of learning: A personal perspective. New Review of Academic Librarianship, 16(1), 45-56. DOI: 10.1080/13614530903574637
The University of Texas Libraries held a Library Video Contest and asked students to make a short video or animation that the libraries could use to promote their resources and services. This animation is one of the five winning entries.
Thanks Ramona!
All that Glisters is not Gold: Web 2.0 and the Librarian
Anderson, P. (2007). All that glisters is not gold: Web 2.0 and the librarian. Journal of Librarianship and Information Science, 39(4), 195 – 198.
The impact of ‘Web 2.0’ and social media on the library is the subject of Anderson’s article All that Glisters is not Gold: Web 2.0 and the Librarian. Paul Anderson, who is a technology writer and editor, discusses the impact of these services within libraries. This review examines the author’s argument that there needs to be a formal definition and an agreed-upon theoretical framework for Web 2.0 technologies, and subsequently Library 2.0 services. Overall the article is well researched and discusses some new areas of development.
Anderson begins the editorial by focusing on the fact that when the term Web 2.0 was first coined by O’Reilly Media Inc., it was not identified as a particular group of technologies. Instead it was a variety of pre-existing social software applications and websites through which media was shared and thereby allowed the Web to become more socially connected.
Web 2.0 can be an amorphous concept to grasp. However, Anderson has outlined some ideas for a three part framework to give a more formal definition for Web 2.0. The first aspect consists of the older ‘visible’ social software applications and media-sharing services, as well as newer social networking services and data ‘mash-ups’. The second aspect includes ideas from O’Reilly’s original paper on Web 2.0 (O’Reilly, 2005). These ideas help understand current and future developments. The third aspect involves technologies and standards introduced by the World Wide Web Consortium, an international community that develops standards to ensure the long-term growth of the Web (W3C, 2009).
In his discussion of Web 2.0, Anderson introduces the term Library 2.0, a term he believes is controversial but in need of an agreed definition. The author states that by applying Web 2.0 technologies to libraries, collections will become more interactive and accessible. The challenge is for libraries to keep up with the constant rate of change, or “perpetual beta”, and development in services as well as upholding the librarian’s ethical responsibility of respect for privacy and copyright. Anderson concludes this editorial by arguing that librarians are in a strong position to influence technological development and its use within libraries.
The title of this editorial is interesting as implies that Web 2.0 technologies have many advantages for libraries but librarians are not yet using them to their full potential. Anderson implores librarians to be proactive in employing Library 2.0 services and “be prepared to experiment and take risks” (p. 196). Casey and Savastinuk (2006) reiterate this view by saying librarians are too comfortable with their services and programs and are failing to make the changes needed to implement Library 2.0.
Although this article has been well researched and cited, Anderson tries to include too much information in such a short editorial. He has also spent a lot of time defining and writing the history of Web 2.0 rather than discussing the potential implications on libraries as the title suggests this article will cover.
In this editorial, Anderson correctly points out that there is no precise definition of Library 2.0 or even Web 2.0. Both terms have been widely debated (Holmberg, Huvila, Kronqvist-Berg & Widen-Wulff, 2009). Anderson points out that the term Web 2.0 is ‘amorphous’, but fails to address why there is need for a definition. He also fails to explain why there is “an urgent need” for an agreed definition of Library 2.0 (p. 196). If Web 2.0 and as an extension Library 2.0 are constantly changing, it may never be possible to give a concrete definition to either.
The final shortcoming of this editorial is the author’s technological focus on the impact of Web 2.0 on libraries. This is understandable with Anderson’s technical background. The author makes the important point of the ethical issues involved in Web 2.0 applications. However, Anderson fails to address other social aspects of these technologies. When describing software “as perpetual beta” the author could explain the time consuming and economic implications on libraries as they constantly try to implement changes and updates to services.
Despite these criticisms, Anderson’s editorial is a valuable contribution to literature. He introduces some interesting ideas and areas of development. It is particularly important that librarians take heed of his request that they become more proactive in the introduction of new technologies. Web 2.0 services are making an impact on libraries (Maness, 2006) but librarians must ensure they regularly update their skills and keep abreast of new technological developments.
Meredith Farkas talks about building Academic Library 2.0. (November 2nd, 2007)
What is Library 2.0? by Kathryn Greenhill
The impact of ‘Web 2.0’ and social media on the library is the subject of Anderson’s article All that Glisters is not Gold: Web 2.0 and the Librarian. Paul Anderson, who is a technology writer and editor, discusses the impact of these services within libraries. This review examines the author’s argument that there needs to be a formal definition and an agreed-upon theoretical framework for Web 2.0 technologies, and subsequently Library 2.0 services. Overall the article is well researched and discusses some new areas of development.
Anderson begins the editorial by focusing on the fact that when the term Web 2.0 was first coined by O’Reilly Media Inc., it was not identified as a particular group of technologies. Instead it was a variety of pre-existing social software applications and websites through which media was shared and thereby allowed the Web to become more socially connected.
Web 2.0 can be an amorphous concept to grasp. However, Anderson has outlined some ideas for a three part framework to give a more formal definition for Web 2.0. The first aspect consists of the older ‘visible’ social software applications and media-sharing services, as well as newer social networking services and data ‘mash-ups’. The second aspect includes ideas from O’Reilly’s original paper on Web 2.0 (O’Reilly, 2005). These ideas help understand current and future developments. The third aspect involves technologies and standards introduced by the World Wide Web Consortium, an international community that develops standards to ensure the long-term growth of the Web (W3C, 2009).
In his discussion of Web 2.0, Anderson introduces the term Library 2.0, a term he believes is controversial but in need of an agreed definition. The author states that by applying Web 2.0 technologies to libraries, collections will become more interactive and accessible. The challenge is for libraries to keep up with the constant rate of change, or “perpetual beta”, and development in services as well as upholding the librarian’s ethical responsibility of respect for privacy and copyright. Anderson concludes this editorial by arguing that librarians are in a strong position to influence technological development and its use within libraries.
The title of this editorial is interesting as implies that Web 2.0 technologies have many advantages for libraries but librarians are not yet using them to their full potential. Anderson implores librarians to be proactive in employing Library 2.0 services and “be prepared to experiment and take risks” (p. 196). Casey and Savastinuk (2006) reiterate this view by saying librarians are too comfortable with their services and programs and are failing to make the changes needed to implement Library 2.0.
Although this article has been well researched and cited, Anderson tries to include too much information in such a short editorial. He has also spent a lot of time defining and writing the history of Web 2.0 rather than discussing the potential implications on libraries as the title suggests this article will cover.
In this editorial, Anderson correctly points out that there is no precise definition of Library 2.0 or even Web 2.0. Both terms have been widely debated (Holmberg, Huvila, Kronqvist-Berg & Widen-Wulff, 2009). Anderson points out that the term Web 2.0 is ‘amorphous’, but fails to address why there is need for a definition. He also fails to explain why there is “an urgent need” for an agreed definition of Library 2.0 (p. 196). If Web 2.0 and as an extension Library 2.0 are constantly changing, it may never be possible to give a concrete definition to either.
The final shortcoming of this editorial is the author’s technological focus on the impact of Web 2.0 on libraries. This is understandable with Anderson’s technical background. The author makes the important point of the ethical issues involved in Web 2.0 applications. However, Anderson fails to address other social aspects of these technologies. When describing software “as perpetual beta” the author could explain the time consuming and economic implications on libraries as they constantly try to implement changes and updates to services.
Despite these criticisms, Anderson’s editorial is a valuable contribution to literature. He introduces some interesting ideas and areas of development. It is particularly important that librarians take heed of his request that they become more proactive in the introduction of new technologies. Web 2.0 services are making an impact on libraries (Maness, 2006) but librarians must ensure they regularly update their skills and keep abreast of new technological developments.
References
Anderson, P. (2007). All that glisters is not gold: Web 2.0 and the librarian. Journal of Librarianship and Information Science, 39(4), 195 – 198.
Casey M. E.,& Savastinuk, L. C. (2006). Library 2.0: Service for the next-generation library. Library Journal. Retrieved from http://www.libraryjournal.com/article/CA6365200.html
Holmberg, K., Huvila, I., Kronqvist-Berg, M., Widen-Wulff, G. (2009). What is Library 2.0?. Journal of Documentation, 65(4), p. 668-681. Retrieved from http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/mcb/jd
Maness, J. M. (2006). Library 2.0 theory: Web 2.0 and its implications for libraries. Webology, 3(2), Article 25. Retrieved from http://www.webology.org/2006/v3n2/a25.html
O’Reilly, T. (2005). What is web 2.0: Design patterns and business models for the next generation of software. O’Reilly Media, Inc. Retrieved from http://oreilly.com/pub/a/web2/archive/what-is-web-20.html?page=1
W3C (2009). W3C Mission. W3C (MIT, ERCIM, Keio). Retrieved from http://www.w3.org/Consortium/mission.html
Meredith Farkas talks about building Academic Library 2.0. (November 2nd, 2007)
What is Library 2.0? by Kathryn Greenhill
Message stick replaced by memory stick
The digital divide is alive and well in Australia. Statistically Indigenous Australians are much less likely to use the Internet in their homes than non-Indigenous Australian.The Australian government has said that they plan to provide broadband access, through the National Broadband Network, to every Australian home. However, this is not actually the case. Non-Indigenous Australians will get the chance to connect to the Internet directly from their own home, whereas the government is only planning on extending internet services to remote Indigenous communities through shared community facilities.If Indigenous communities are lucky enough to have Community access centre, they often suffer from lack of operational funds.
The following is a Youtube video about a philanthropic group of people, called the Dot.Com.Mob, who are helping indigenous Australians from far north Queensland to become digital citizens. Originally a group of 5 computer literate indigenous girls were asked to teach a group of local indigenous Australians computer literacy skills. When they arrived on the first day there was no one at the centre. The locals had to be rounded up from their homes. They were shown their local area on Google Maps, they looked at Skype and were taught skills like making business cards.
The locals ended up being so excited by the skills they had learnt and the potential of this technology that the local council gave the Dot.Com.Mob their own council chambers as a place to set up their new computer centre. The Queensland Government Library Association joined with the group to become the Indigenous Knowledge and Technology Centre.
The centre is now inundated with people everyday. Schools are also being well attended because the children want to learn how to become literate in order to use the computers at the centre. The Dot.Com.Mob is now lobbying the government for financial aid to ensure that the centre continues to provide services. Greg McLean, Hope Vale Mayor said "we must also be funded to provide reading, so our community members can enjoy the same services as every other Australian".
The following is a Youtube video about a philanthropic group of people, called the Dot.Com.Mob, who are helping indigenous Australians from far north Queensland to become digital citizens. Originally a group of 5 computer literate indigenous girls were asked to teach a group of local indigenous Australians computer literacy skills. When they arrived on the first day there was no one at the centre. The locals had to be rounded up from their homes. They were shown their local area on Google Maps, they looked at Skype and were taught skills like making business cards.
The locals ended up being so excited by the skills they had learnt and the potential of this technology that the local council gave the Dot.Com.Mob their own council chambers as a place to set up their new computer centre. The Queensland Government Library Association joined with the group to become the Indigenous Knowledge and Technology Centre.
The centre is now inundated with people everyday. Schools are also being well attended because the children want to learn how to become literate in order to use the computers at the centre. The Dot.Com.Mob is now lobbying the government for financial aid to ensure that the centre continues to provide services. Greg McLean, Hope Vale Mayor said "we must also be funded to provide reading, so our community members can enjoy the same services as every other Australian".
Sunday, 14 August 2011
The Digital Economy and Australia's National Broadband Network
The following video shows Senator Stephen Conroy, Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy, discussing the National Broadband Network and what it will mean for Australians.
The Australian government states, in the Australia's Digital Economy: Future Directions paper, that the digital economy is ‘the global network of economic and social activities that are enabled by information and communications technologies, such as the internet, mobile and sensor networks.’
The government believes the National Broadband Network will allow Australian to "participate in and enjoy the benefits of the global digital economy". They also state that greater use of digital technology can "bridge distances and improve service delivery for regional and rural Australians. It can improve educational and health outcomes, allow for better management of the country’s growing and ageing population, promote social inclusion and facilitate more environmentally sustainable management of the built and natural environment".
At present Australia is lagging behind the world's leading digital economies. In 2010, the OECD reports that Australia was ranked 18th amongst member states for broadband penetration. The Australian government is committed to the National Broadband Network as it believes that it will "form the platform for Australia’s future engagement in the digital economy".
CC Australian Government: Department of Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy
http://www.nbn.gov.au/the-vision/
The Australian government states, in the Australia's Digital Economy: Future Directions paper, that the digital economy is ‘the global network of economic and social activities that are enabled by information and communications technologies, such as the internet, mobile and sensor networks.’
The government believes the National Broadband Network will allow Australian to "participate in and enjoy the benefits of the global digital economy". They also state that greater use of digital technology can "bridge distances and improve service delivery for regional and rural Australians. It can improve educational and health outcomes, allow for better management of the country’s growing and ageing population, promote social inclusion and facilitate more environmentally sustainable management of the built and natural environment".
At present Australia is lagging behind the world's leading digital economies. In 2010, the OECD reports that Australia was ranked 18th amongst member states for broadband penetration. The Australian government is committed to the National Broadband Network as it believes that it will "form the platform for Australia’s future engagement in the digital economy".
CC Australian Government: Department of Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy
http://www.nbn.gov.au/the-vision/
Wednesday, 10 August 2011
What is Web 2.0?
Where did the term Web 2.0 originate?
The concept began at a conference brainstorming session between O'Reilly and MediaLive International in 2004. They believed that after the dot-com bubble bursting in 2001, the web was more important than ever.
In their brainstorming session, they wrote the following list that shows the difference between Web 1.0 and Web 2.0
Web 1.0 --> Web 2.0
DoubleClick --> Google AdSense
Ofoto --> Flickr
Akamai --> BitTorrent
mp3.com --> Napster
Britannica Online --> Wikipedia
personal websites --> blogging
evite --> upcoming.org and EVDB
domain name speculation --> search engine optimization
page views --> cost per click
screen scraping --> web services
publishing --> participation
content management systems --> wikis
directories (taxonomy) --> tagging ("folksonomy")
stickiness --> syndication
O'Reilly believes that "You can visualize Web 2.0 as a set of principles and practices that tie together a veritable solar system of sites that demonstrate some or all of those principles, at a varying distance from that core."
This is a "meme map" of Web 2.0 that was developing during a brainstorm session at a O'Reilly media conference. The map shows that there are many ideas that radiate out from the core of Web 2.0
References
http://oreilly.com/web2/archive/what-is-web-20.html
The concept began at a conference brainstorming session between O'Reilly and MediaLive International in 2004. They believed that after the dot-com bubble bursting in 2001, the web was more important than ever.
In their brainstorming session, they wrote the following list that shows the difference between Web 1.0 and Web 2.0
Web 1.0 --> Web 2.0
DoubleClick --> Google AdSense
Ofoto --> Flickr
Akamai --> BitTorrent
mp3.com --> Napster
Britannica Online --> Wikipedia
personal websites --> blogging
evite --> upcoming.org and EVDB
domain name speculation --> search engine optimization
page views --> cost per click
screen scraping --> web services
publishing --> participation
content management systems --> wikis
directories (taxonomy) --> tagging ("folksonomy")
stickiness --> syndication
O'Reilly believes that "You can visualize Web 2.0 as a set of principles and practices that tie together a veritable solar system of sites that demonstrate some or all of those principles, at a varying distance from that core."
This is a "meme map" of Web 2.0 that was developing during a brainstorm session at a O'Reilly media conference. The map shows that there are many ideas that radiate out from the core of Web 2.0
References
http://oreilly.com/web2/archive/what-is-web-20.html
Wednesday, 3 August 2011
Blog design
Blogs are quite new to libraries. They can be used to tell patrons of new services or resources in the library.
When setting up a blog or website interface design is an important consideration. Usability is crucial if libraries want patrons to be able to easily find what they need and are able to use their blog/website without any problems. It is also important that blogs/websites reach a wide group of patrons and can be used by all members of the community.
Adaptive and assistive technology enables patrons who have disabilities to access the library. It is important to ensure that libraries meet the Australian Disability Discrimination Act (1992).
In designing this blog, I have tried to ensure that it would be able to be used by all members of a library community. This has included using larger, easy to use font for the visually impaired; a translator, for patrons of non-English speaking backgrounds; and an I-speech widget which reads blog posts aloud, to cater for the hearing impaired.
Here is an informative youtube video about Assistive Technology Loan Libraries
When setting up a blog or website interface design is an important consideration. Usability is crucial if libraries want patrons to be able to easily find what they need and are able to use their blog/website without any problems. It is also important that blogs/websites reach a wide group of patrons and can be used by all members of the community.
Adaptive and assistive technology enables patrons who have disabilities to access the library. It is important to ensure that libraries meet the Australian Disability Discrimination Act (1992).
In designing this blog, I have tried to ensure that it would be able to be used by all members of a library community. This has included using larger, easy to use font for the visually impaired; a translator, for patrons of non-English speaking backgrounds; and an I-speech widget which reads blog posts aloud, to cater for the hearing impaired.
Here is an informative youtube video about Assistive Technology Loan Libraries
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)