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
No comments:
Post a Comment