What information policies do libraries generate?
Policies provide an institution with a framework between you and a patron or co-worker.
Libraries divided their collection of media into different broad policies, which included section, reselection, reconsideration, and acquisition policy.
*Selection policy places the materials in the collection, which gets assigned a decision or responsibility. This policy can go through deselecting policy and be reconsidered on it procedures. This policy should ask the following questions how are materials selected and who will select them? This is a way to create goals both short and long term.
*Deselection policy is where items can be removed from the collection.
*Reconsideration policy is where a person(s) can challenge an item in a collection based on its selection policy.
*Acquisition policy assigns items in the most efficient way.
Libraries have created guidance line for their operation procedures through a collection of management. Policies come from are the acceptable use and computer policies, CIPA and Filtering, USA Patriot Act, and Washington State Public Library Policies.
Examples of what libraries take in consideration to create their policies
• what information cannot be accessed
• what information individuals can access
• what information social groups can access
• what information organizations can provide access to
• what information the government must provide access to
• what information the government does not have to provide access to
• what information the government can access about citizens.
Some of the Policies that are created by libraries are.
Questions:
How have these policies affected information access globally?
How have these policies changed attitudes toward information?
How have these policies changed the types, of information citizens seek access to?
http://eduscapes.com/sms/access/policies.html
http://www.mrsc.org/subjects/infoserv/publiclib/libpolicy.aspx?r=1
http://www.ala.org
http://vnweb.hwwilsonweb.com.proxy.lib.wayne.edu/hww/results/results_single_fulltext.jhtml;hwwilsonid=3IUXCY4VUR50FQA3DIMCFGGADUNGIIV0
Sunday, March 23, 2008
Saturday, March 22, 2008
Legislation and Libraries
Amendments contained within the U.S. Constitution protect the right to information. However, other laws often come into conflict with this principle. States have created privacy laws to protect the library patron, but the federal government has created legislation, such as the Patriot Act, which directly conflict with these laws. The laws conflicting with patron privacy are often created in the guise of protecting people from themselves (Internet Filters) and in the interest of state security (Patriot Act).
Privacy
The First and Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution protect the rights of library patrons. The First Amendment protects the patron’s right to receive information anonymously. The Fourth Amendment protects the patron from unlawful search and seizure of personal records, such as library records. The American Library Association upholds the right of patrons to privacy and confidentiality in the ALA Code of Ethics. The Michigan’s Library Privacy Act dictates that library records cannot be released without the consent of the patron.
The USA Patriot Act has been accused of infringing upon the rights of patrons to freely access information anonymously. The USA Patriot Act is “Legislation passed in 2001 and reauthorized in 2006; various provisions expand the authority of the Federal Bureau of Investigation to gain access to all types of records, including library records, stored electronic data, and electronic communications.” (Caldwell-Stone, 2007)
Internet Filtering
Filters can be disabled upon request of anyone over the age of 18. There has been controversy over the censorship of important information by filtering software. “Twenty-one states have Internet filtering laws that apply to public schools or libraries. The majority of these states simply require school boards or public libraries to adopt Internet use policies to prevent minors from gaining access to sexually explicit, obscene or harmful materials. However, some states also require publicly funded institutions to install filtering software on library public access terminals or school computers.” (National Conferences on State Legislatures, 2007) The United States Supreme Court upheld the Children’s Internet Protection Act in 2003. The American Library Association had challenged the act on the basis of infringing upon citizens’ right to free access of information. (McGuire, 2003)
Copyright Law Resources
On this website created by Cornell University, there is a simple chart that dictates what is still under copyright and what is now public domain. I found it interesting that even unpublished works are protected under copyright for the life of the author + 70 years.
Good Resource>>
http://www.copyright.cornell.edu/public_domain/
On GovTrack, you can search for bills related to copyright issues. It is in librarians’ best interest to stay aware of pending legislation.
Link>> http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billsearch.xpd?PostFormID=billsearch&AutoPostbackField=&AutoPostbackValue=&AutoPostbackState=&q=copyright&session=110&chamber=&status=
Discussion Questions:
1) Watch this TED video>> http://www.ted.com/talks/view/id/187
a. Discuss your reaction to the information presented by Larry Lessig.
2) What legal issues have you come across in your work setting?
3) What legislation is in opposition to library policies?
Further Reading:
There is a book titled “Library’s Legal Answer Book” that would be of use to a librarian with legal questions. It can be purchased from Amazon: http://www.amazon.com/Librarys-Legal-Answer-Book-Minow/dp/0838908284
Bibliography
Caldwell-Stone, D. (2007). Privacy and Confidentiality. Oregon Library Association Preconference. Salem, OR: Oregon Library Association.
McGuire, D. (2003, June 23). Supreme Court Upholds Internet Filters. Retrieved March 16, 2008, from Washingtonpost.com: http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A22519-2003Jun23¬Found=true
National Conferences on State Legislatures. (2007, December 17). Children and the Internet: Laws Relating to Filtering, Blocking. Retrieved March 17, 2008, from NCSL: http://www.ncsl.org/programs/lis/cip/filterlaws.htm
Privacy
The First and Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution protect the rights of library patrons. The First Amendment protects the patron’s right to receive information anonymously. The Fourth Amendment protects the patron from unlawful search and seizure of personal records, such as library records. The American Library Association upholds the right of patrons to privacy and confidentiality in the ALA Code of Ethics. The Michigan’s Library Privacy Act dictates that library records cannot be released without the consent of the patron.
The USA Patriot Act has been accused of infringing upon the rights of patrons to freely access information anonymously. The USA Patriot Act is “Legislation passed in 2001 and reauthorized in 2006; various provisions expand the authority of the Federal Bureau of Investigation to gain access to all types of records, including library records, stored electronic data, and electronic communications.” (Caldwell-Stone, 2007)
Internet Filtering
Filters can be disabled upon request of anyone over the age of 18. There has been controversy over the censorship of important information by filtering software. “Twenty-one states have Internet filtering laws that apply to public schools or libraries. The majority of these states simply require school boards or public libraries to adopt Internet use policies to prevent minors from gaining access to sexually explicit, obscene or harmful materials. However, some states also require publicly funded institutions to install filtering software on library public access terminals or school computers.” (National Conferences on State Legislatures, 2007) The United States Supreme Court upheld the Children’s Internet Protection Act in 2003. The American Library Association had challenged the act on the basis of infringing upon citizens’ right to free access of information. (McGuire, 2003)
Copyright Law Resources
On this website created by Cornell University, there is a simple chart that dictates what is still under copyright and what is now public domain. I found it interesting that even unpublished works are protected under copyright for the life of the author + 70 years.
Good Resource>>
http://www.copyright.cornell.edu/public_domain/
On GovTrack, you can search for bills related to copyright issues. It is in librarians’ best interest to stay aware of pending legislation.
Link>> http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billsearch.xpd?PostFormID=billsearch&AutoPostbackField=&AutoPostbackValue=&AutoPostbackState=&q=copyright&session=110&chamber=&status=
Discussion Questions:
1) Watch this TED video>> http://www.ted.com/talks/view/id/187
a. Discuss your reaction to the information presented by Larry Lessig.
2) What legal issues have you come across in your work setting?
3) What legislation is in opposition to library policies?
Further Reading:
There is a book titled “Library’s Legal Answer Book” that would be of use to a librarian with legal questions. It can be purchased from Amazon: http://www.amazon.com/Librarys-Legal-Answer-Book-Minow/dp/0838908284
Bibliography
Caldwell-Stone, D. (2007). Privacy and Confidentiality. Oregon Library Association Preconference. Salem, OR: Oregon Library Association.
McGuire, D. (2003, June 23). Supreme Court Upholds Internet Filters. Retrieved March 16, 2008, from Washingtonpost.com: http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A22519-2003Jun23¬Found=true
National Conferences on State Legislatures. (2007, December 17). Children and the Internet: Laws Relating to Filtering, Blocking. Retrieved March 17, 2008, from NCSL: http://www.ncsl.org/programs/lis/cip/filterlaws.htm
Information Policy Issues
Information policy is a broad set of terms that incorporates a wide range of specific issues. As librarians we act as providers of information, who maneuver within and sometimes around many different information policies. The issues at the crux of information policy, center on a basic freedom to access information in all shapes and sizes, regardless of content “More generally, we can with safety say that freedom of information (FOI) issues are at the core of information policy” (Duff, 2004). Within this broad concept, regulations and definitions have been assigned, which results in information policies. Information policy deals with specific issues generated from FOI. Alistair Duff’s 2004 article entitled The Past, Present, and Future of Information Policy states this normative list of information policy issues:
1. Freedom of Information
2. Privacy
3. Data Protection and Security
4. Official Secrets
5. Libraries and Archives
6. Scientific, Technical, and Medical (STM) Documentation
7. Economics and Government Publications
8. Copyright and Intellectual Infrastructure
9. National Informative Infrastructure
10. International Information Flows
These issues make up the core issues at the heart of most information policies. While, libraries have their own category, many of the other issues directly affect the library world. All of the issues on Duff’s list are important issues in information policy, but two of these issues directly affect libraries: privacy and copyright. With the widespread use of digital resources and the Internet, the issues of privacy and copyright have entered a new era of information policies.
Privacy Policies and Issues:
“Privacy is essential to the exercise of free speech, free thought, and free association. Lack of privacy and confidentiality chills users’ choices, thereby suppressing access to ideas” (ALA, 2005). Privacy is an information policy that has a constant, on-going discourse. The website Privacy Rights Clearinghouse list nineteen current issues surrounding the idea of privacy. A reoccurring theme in many of these nineteen issues is the idea that freedom to information is essential, but so is an individual’s right to privacy. Finding a balance between the two is key. One of the main issues surrounding privacy policy involves the issue of personally identifiable information. It includes information such as name, address, email, and IP addresses that can be collected by government officials, advertisers, and financial institutions (Cochran, 2007). This type of information is identified through cookies passed between computers and also from login and password identification systems.
Helpful Resources
Privacy Rights Clearinghouse and Current Privacy Issues
ALA and Privacy
Copyright in the Digital Era
For many years the rules about copyright and fair use were clear. The explosion of technology, the growth of the Internet, and mass digitization has added unprecedented elements to copyright law. The Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) is one attempt to deal with a growing debate over digital copyright issues. This act was passed in 1998 and it “Prohibits the ‘circumvention’ of any effective ‘technological protection measure’ (e.g., a password or form of encryption) used by a copyright holder to restrict access to its material” (ALA, 2008). This complicated statements basically means that going around a copyright holders authentication system, regardless of purpose, is illegal. While this act effected fair use policies, it did not make any provision to these polices and the information user’s privileges and rights (ALA, 2008). This idea impacts the fair use component of copyright law. For example if a book was purchased and past on to a friend to read is a fair and common practice under copyright law, but “In the digital world of the DMCA, you may need a password to open that book, and there may even be technology-imposed limitations on who can use that password. You may not be able to access your friend's e-book, even if he or she legally bought the copy and voluntarily lent it to you” (Amen, Keogh, Wolff, 2002). This act can have far ranging effects with the licensing agreements between libraries and vendors and fair use policies.
Helpful Resources:
The UCLA Online Institute for Cyberspace Law and Policy: Digital Millennium Copyright Act
ALA and DMCA
This is a very interesting article from the New York Times that describes an incident where a Russian programmer visited the US to present at conference and ended up in jail for copyright infringement.
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9806E0D9123DF933A05754C0A9679C8B63
Disscussion Questions:
1. Take a look at Duff’s list of ten information policy issues. Do you see any other issues that directly effect libraries and patrons?
2. Should what people access and their search records be available for others to view, and in some instances be used against them? What if the material viewed is an indicator of criminal activity?
3. Using this link to view the current issues listed by the Privacy Rights Clearinghouse, do you see any issues that directly impact library and information policies?
4. Do you believe that copyright laws face new challenges in today’s digital environments?
Works Cited
Amen, K., Keogh, T., & Wolff, N. (2002, May). Digital copyright: A tale of domestic discord, presented in three acts. Computers in libraries, 5, 22-27.
American Library Association. (2005, May 2). Privacy tool kit. Retrieved March 19, 2008, from
http://www.ala.org/ala/oif/iftoolkits/toolkitsprivacy/privacy.htm
American Library Association. (2008). DMCA: The digital millennium copyright act. Retrieved March 19, 2008, from
http://www.ala.org/ala/washoff/woissues/copyrightb/federallegislation/dmca/dmcadigitalmillenium.cfm#intro
Cochran, S. (2007, June). The right of privacy: Access to personal information. In Wex. Retrieved March 19, 2008, from Legal Information Institute at Cornell Law School Web
site: http://straylight.law.cornell.edu/wex/index.php/Privacy
Duff, A. S. (2004, March). The past, present, and future of information policy.
Information, communication & society, 7(1), 69-87.
1. Freedom of Information
2. Privacy
3. Data Protection and Security
4. Official Secrets
5. Libraries and Archives
6. Scientific, Technical, and Medical (STM) Documentation
7. Economics and Government Publications
8. Copyright and Intellectual Infrastructure
9. National Informative Infrastructure
10. International Information Flows
These issues make up the core issues at the heart of most information policies. While, libraries have their own category, many of the other issues directly affect the library world. All of the issues on Duff’s list are important issues in information policy, but two of these issues directly affect libraries: privacy and copyright. With the widespread use of digital resources and the Internet, the issues of privacy and copyright have entered a new era of information policies.
Privacy Policies and Issues:
“Privacy is essential to the exercise of free speech, free thought, and free association. Lack of privacy and confidentiality chills users’ choices, thereby suppressing access to ideas” (ALA, 2005). Privacy is an information policy that has a constant, on-going discourse. The website Privacy Rights Clearinghouse list nineteen current issues surrounding the idea of privacy. A reoccurring theme in many of these nineteen issues is the idea that freedom to information is essential, but so is an individual’s right to privacy. Finding a balance between the two is key. One of the main issues surrounding privacy policy involves the issue of personally identifiable information. It includes information such as name, address, email, and IP addresses that can be collected by government officials, advertisers, and financial institutions (Cochran, 2007). This type of information is identified through cookies passed between computers and also from login and password identification systems.
Helpful Resources
Privacy Rights Clearinghouse and Current Privacy Issues
ALA and Privacy
Copyright in the Digital Era
For many years the rules about copyright and fair use were clear. The explosion of technology, the growth of the Internet, and mass digitization has added unprecedented elements to copyright law. The Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) is one attempt to deal with a growing debate over digital copyright issues. This act was passed in 1998 and it “Prohibits the ‘circumvention’ of any effective ‘technological protection measure’ (e.g., a password or form of encryption) used by a copyright holder to restrict access to its material” (ALA, 2008). This complicated statements basically means that going around a copyright holders authentication system, regardless of purpose, is illegal. While this act effected fair use policies, it did not make any provision to these polices and the information user’s privileges and rights (ALA, 2008). This idea impacts the fair use component of copyright law. For example if a book was purchased and past on to a friend to read is a fair and common practice under copyright law, but “In the digital world of the DMCA, you may need a password to open that book, and there may even be technology-imposed limitations on who can use that password. You may not be able to access your friend's e-book, even if he or she legally bought the copy and voluntarily lent it to you” (Amen, Keogh, Wolff, 2002). This act can have far ranging effects with the licensing agreements between libraries and vendors and fair use policies.
Helpful Resources:
The UCLA Online Institute for Cyberspace Law and Policy: Digital Millennium Copyright Act
ALA and DMCA
This is a very interesting article from the New York Times that describes an incident where a Russian programmer visited the US to present at conference and ended up in jail for copyright infringement.
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9806E0D9123DF933A05754C0A9679C8B63
Disscussion Questions:
1. Take a look at Duff’s list of ten information policy issues. Do you see any other issues that directly effect libraries and patrons?
2. Should what people access and their search records be available for others to view, and in some instances be used against them? What if the material viewed is an indicator of criminal activity?
3. Using this link to view the current issues listed by the Privacy Rights Clearinghouse, do you see any issues that directly impact library and information policies?
4. Do you believe that copyright laws face new challenges in today’s digital environments?
Works Cited
Amen, K., Keogh, T., & Wolff, N. (2002, May). Digital copyright: A tale of domestic discord, presented in three acts. Computers in libraries, 5, 22-27.
American Library Association. (2005, May 2). Privacy tool kit. Retrieved March 19, 2008, from
http://www.ala.org/ala/oif/iftoolkits/toolkitsprivacy/privacy.htm
American Library Association. (2008). DMCA: The digital millennium copyright act. Retrieved March 19, 2008, from
http://www.ala.org/ala/washoff/woissues/copyrightb/federallegislation/dmca/dmcadigitalmillenium.cfm#intro
Cochran, S. (2007, June). The right of privacy: Access to personal information. In Wex. Retrieved March 19, 2008, from Legal Information Institute at Cornell Law School Web
site: http://straylight.law.cornell.edu/wex/index.php/Privacy
Duff, A. S. (2004, March). The past, present, and future of information policy.
Information, communication & society, 7(1), 69-87.
Friday, March 21, 2008
Impact of information policies on librarians and patrons
Impact of information policies on librarians and patrons:
Information policies are the kind of policies that deal with access to information. These policies have been for long playing a critical role in libraries, thus affecting the librarians as well as the patrons.
Information policies imposed by the government can affect both the patrons and the librarians. One example is the Patriotic Act that impinges primarily on libraries. This act threats the patrons’ privacy and confidentiality with regard to information they seek borrow and acquire. Only through a court order, the FBI has the right to track users’ records of all types of access to information through the library. This issue will probably push some patrons fear to access certain type of information and make them feel unsecure. Not only this act has a negative effect on patrons but also it touches upon the librarians’ ethics of code. It makes us as professionals face a dilemma; according to ALA code of ethics we shall protect our users’ right for privacy by not divulging any information about their access to information records. However with the patriotic act we found ourselves obliged to violate the code of ethics and provide the government with the information they are seeking in the case of a court order.
Another issue of information policy that affects the libraries and patrons is the censorship issue. Law enforcement agencies can censor the libraries and remove any material that they deem inappropriate for public disclosure. Not to forget the Children Internet Protection Act through which the government have imposed on libraries to install filters on their public computers in order for them not to lose their funding. Those issues stir the patrons’ right to have full access to information in a democratic society. Patrons who use to have access to this information have to shift to other resources which may not turn out to be heavily reliable. With little accessibility to governmental resources, we as librarians will have to work hard to provide the patrons with information they are seeking; in a world where we have been for long devoted to constitutional right for full free access to information by our users.
Copyright could be an additional issue to mention in this context. Librarians play a vital role as promoter for individual users of copyrighted materials. The librarians place tremendous efforts in informing themselves about copyrighted policies and making these policies clear to the staff and the patrons. License requirements could eradicate the right of libraries to lend products and bequeath library materials. Again this issue clashes with the librarians’ mission in providing full access of information to patrons; on the other hand it limits the users’ right for free access to information.
Discussion questions
1. As a librarian what would you do to protect your library from the Patriotic Act effect’s on both your library and your patrons? Do you think that this act has succeeded in minimizing the terrorist attacks as deemed by the government?
2. As a librarian do you think that placing censorship is appropriate? Why? If you are the decision maker in your library, would you place filters?
3. How would you behave in case of a patron violating the copyright rules in front of you? Do you think that librarians have total hegemony over copyrighted materials placed at their libraries?
Bibliographies
1. Butler, R. P. (Fall 2003). Copyright Law and Organizing the Internet. Library Trends 52(2), 307-317.
2. Dobija, J. (2007, September). The First Amendment Needs New Clothes. American Libraries 38(8), 50-53.
3. Woolwine, D. E. (2007). Libraries and the Balance of Liberty and Security. Library Philosophy and Practice 1-17.
Information policies are the kind of policies that deal with access to information. These policies have been for long playing a critical role in libraries, thus affecting the librarians as well as the patrons.
Information policies imposed by the government can affect both the patrons and the librarians. One example is the Patriotic Act that impinges primarily on libraries. This act threats the patrons’ privacy and confidentiality with regard to information they seek borrow and acquire. Only through a court order, the FBI has the right to track users’ records of all types of access to information through the library. This issue will probably push some patrons fear to access certain type of information and make them feel unsecure. Not only this act has a negative effect on patrons but also it touches upon the librarians’ ethics of code. It makes us as professionals face a dilemma; according to ALA code of ethics we shall protect our users’ right for privacy by not divulging any information about their access to information records. However with the patriotic act we found ourselves obliged to violate the code of ethics and provide the government with the information they are seeking in the case of a court order.
Another issue of information policy that affects the libraries and patrons is the censorship issue. Law enforcement agencies can censor the libraries and remove any material that they deem inappropriate for public disclosure. Not to forget the Children Internet Protection Act through which the government have imposed on libraries to install filters on their public computers in order for them not to lose their funding. Those issues stir the patrons’ right to have full access to information in a democratic society. Patrons who use to have access to this information have to shift to other resources which may not turn out to be heavily reliable. With little accessibility to governmental resources, we as librarians will have to work hard to provide the patrons with information they are seeking; in a world where we have been for long devoted to constitutional right for full free access to information by our users.
Copyright could be an additional issue to mention in this context. Librarians play a vital role as promoter for individual users of copyrighted materials. The librarians place tremendous efforts in informing themselves about copyrighted policies and making these policies clear to the staff and the patrons. License requirements could eradicate the right of libraries to lend products and bequeath library materials. Again this issue clashes with the librarians’ mission in providing full access of information to patrons; on the other hand it limits the users’ right for free access to information.
Discussion questions
1. As a librarian what would you do to protect your library from the Patriotic Act effect’s on both your library and your patrons? Do you think that this act has succeeded in minimizing the terrorist attacks as deemed by the government?
2. As a librarian do you think that placing censorship is appropriate? Why? If you are the decision maker in your library, would you place filters?
3. How would you behave in case of a patron violating the copyright rules in front of you? Do you think that librarians have total hegemony over copyrighted materials placed at their libraries?
Bibliographies
1. Butler, R. P. (Fall 2003). Copyright Law and Organizing the Internet. Library Trends 52(2), 307-317.
2. Dobija, J. (2007, September). The First Amendment Needs New Clothes. American Libraries 38(8), 50-53.
3. Woolwine, D. E. (2007). Libraries and the Balance of Liberty and Security. Library Philosophy and Practice 1-17.
Thursday, March 20, 2008
What is Information Policy?
Information Policy Basics
Information Policy establishes guidelines by which information is collected, created, organized, stored, accessed, disseminated and retained. Information policy also governs who can access information and how that information can be provided. These far reaching policy directives also facilitate and support the rules with which the media, as well as private and government institutions, share their information. Information policy is extensive; it encompasses guidelines that govern everything from the human rights to literacy to intellectual property rights and copyright law; the most recent of these policies has already influenced our relationship with the internet. Despite its broad and sweeping influence, information policy is not set by a central authority; there is no single administrative law, or simple set of statutes that coordinate information policy, although local and federal governments can have broad influence on information policies. The most notable example of this influence in recent years is the Patriot Act.
A 1996 article written by Charles R. McClure entitled “Libraries and Federal Information Policy”, details the basic characteristics that distinguish Information from more traditional resources It also delineates the reasons surrounding the difficulty in maintaining equality of access among different stakeholders and providing guidance to government agencies in managing information. McClure’s characteristics of information are included below.
- Information is not “used up” by being used;
- Information can be possessed by many people simultaneously;
- It is difficult to prevent people who wish to so do from possessing particular parts of information, or acquiring information without paying for it;
- The value of information for a particular individual often times cannot be determined until the information is disclosed to that user;
- Information can become obsolete, but it cannot be depleted.
- Frequent use of information foes not wear it out; and
- The technical units of measurement of information (bits, bytes, packets) lack meaning ad fail to carry meaning for the consumer of that information.
A key factor in the development of information policy is the introduction and development of new technologies, specifically those related to accessing information, such as the internet (McClure, 1996, p. 214). Additionally, new paths for open access to information also fuel discussion and policy. One such measure is the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2007, which requires National Institutes of Health (NIH) funded researchers to deposit an electronic copy of their peer reviewed manuscripts no later than 12 months from the journal publication date (Reid, 2008). On a broader scale, social networking technologies are also impacting policies. In the 1990s, the Communications Decency Act was passed. This Act was information policy turned law, which sought to protect youth from legal adult pornography. Unfortunately, because of its imprecise language and implementation it was later deemed unconstitutional (Mitrano, 2006). Cases like this are a prime example of how information policy is struggling to keep pace with the rapid advancement of technology, not only to ensure that information is available to everyone, but that people are protected from certain information.
Information policy is also enormously influenced by the political climate of the society in which it is created. The effects of information policy as well as its influence are widely debated and discussed and it “is only recently that information policy has been recognized for its importance in shaping the evolution of modern societies” (McClure, 1996). Being sources, managers, and keepers of information, both in text and electronically, libraries have long been at the center of this very contentious debate.
Discussion Questions:
- Using the list provided above as a reference regarding the basic nature of information, in what ways do you see the structure of information affecting our ability to create information policy? How does the general nature of information affect how we will regulate who has access, as well as where and how information can be accessed?
- In what ways do you see information policy struggling to keep pace with the rapid advancement in technology?
- Information policies are utilized by anyone who needs to organize and distribute information. What kinds of information policies affect you in your everyday life?
Bibliography
Reid, Calvin. (2008, January 7). Publishers, librarians: Clash over NIH rule. Publishers Weekly, 255(1), 13.
Mitrano, Tracy. (2006, Nov./Dec.). A wider world: Youth privacy, and social networking technologies. EDUCAUSE Review, 41(6), 16-29.
McClure, Charles R. (1996, May). Libraries and federal information policy. The Journal of Academic
Librarianship, 22, 214-218.
Shuler, John A. (2007, March). The civic value of academic libraries and the open source university. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 33(2), 301-303.
Tuesday, March 4, 2008
Web 3.0 and the Future of Libraries
Web 3.0, otherwise known as the “semantic web,” will revolutionize the way people search for information. With the implementation of new technology, search engines will become “smarter,” bringing electronic searches one step closer to actually consulting a librarian.
Appealing to the “information agnostic” NextGens, Google’s Universal Search is an “integrated search that brings back results no matter the medium” (Abram & Luther, para. 4; Evans, p. 13). While Google offers more comprehensive searches, other companies are improving the way search engines examine content. Searches of media such as images and video will improve the most dramatically. Current search technology only searches the filenames of these media. In contrast, new Web 3.0 technology will allow users to actually search the content of the image, video, or song (Evans, p. 14). Some of these new search engines are powered by new technology, while others are powered by humans. One example of a human-powered search is the Music Genome Project, or Pandora.com, a search engine that recognizes elements of music files such as vocalists and instrumentation. Machines are not yet able to do this (Evans, p. 14). Examples of computer-powered media searches are those developed by Mu Labs and eVision. These companies have developed “powerful visual analysis tools that let you compare images on the basis of color similarities, pixel by pixel” (Evans, p. 14). In the future, searching non-text media will depend much less on how the image has been tagged by a librarian or other human being and more on the quality of technology being used to analyze the features of the media in question.
Perhaps the most important innovation to accompany Web 3.0 is analysis of user intent. Newly developed search engines “use semantic processing to understand relationships between words, identify concepts on webpages, and then match query concepts to webpage concepts” (Fox, para. 5). A search engine like Google takes all words typed in as a query and looks for documents that contain those words. In contrast, newer search technology will analyze the user’s intent, generate similar words or questions, and include results based on the content or ideas in the webpage, not just matching words (Fox, para. 12). For example, if a user types in a search containing the word “bat,” the search engine will analyze the search to determine whether the user is seeking sporting equipment or information on an animal and it will deliver results accordingly. Once again, finding information will no longer depend on a textual tag that identifies the content of a document or file.
This will have a huge impact on librarians and patrons alike. While current library technology requires all media to carry textual descriptors, Web 3.0 search technology will eliminate this need. Librarians will no longer need to predict how users will search for media when cataloguing materials. Instead, technology will analyze the content and the user’s intent and match the patron with the materials he or she is seeking. On the one hand, this may lead to the elimination of library jobs as patrons become increasingly independent. However, many patrons may still require assistance using updated technology. Therefore, it is logical to predict that as Web 3.0 revolutionizes the search engine, the role of librarians will shift to helping patrons implement new technology and decide which technology will best lead them to the information they seek.
Links
The Music Genome Project
http://www.pandora.com/
eVision Visual Search
http://www.evisionglobal.com/
Discussion Questions
1.) As these new search engines become prevalent, in what ways do you think librarians will still be necessary to help patrons find materials? How do you see our role changing?
2.) How do you think NextGen patrons, who are accustomed to keyword searches like Google, will adapt to Web 3.0? Will it be a smooth transition, or will even seasoned NextGen patrons face a learning curve?
3.) What are some negative results that will come from Web 3.0? What are some positives?
4.) Will the transition to Web 3.0 go smoothly? What challenges might librarians and patrons encounter when trying to implement this new technology?
References
Abram, Stephen, & Luther, Judy (2004). Born with the Chip. Library Journal, 129 (8), p. 24-37.
Evans, Woody (2008). Embryonic Web 3.0. Searcher, 16 (1), p. 12.
Fox, Vanessa (2008). The Promise of Natural Language Search. Information Today, 25 (1), p. 50.
Appealing to the “information agnostic” NextGens, Google’s Universal Search is an “integrated search that brings back results no matter the medium” (Abram & Luther, para. 4; Evans, p. 13). While Google offers more comprehensive searches, other companies are improving the way search engines examine content. Searches of media such as images and video will improve the most dramatically. Current search technology only searches the filenames of these media. In contrast, new Web 3.0 technology will allow users to actually search the content of the image, video, or song (Evans, p. 14). Some of these new search engines are powered by new technology, while others are powered by humans. One example of a human-powered search is the Music Genome Project, or Pandora.com, a search engine that recognizes elements of music files such as vocalists and instrumentation. Machines are not yet able to do this (Evans, p. 14). Examples of computer-powered media searches are those developed by Mu Labs and eVision. These companies have developed “powerful visual analysis tools that let you compare images on the basis of color similarities, pixel by pixel” (Evans, p. 14). In the future, searching non-text media will depend much less on how the image has been tagged by a librarian or other human being and more on the quality of technology being used to analyze the features of the media in question.
Perhaps the most important innovation to accompany Web 3.0 is analysis of user intent. Newly developed search engines “use semantic processing to understand relationships between words, identify concepts on webpages, and then match query concepts to webpage concepts” (Fox, para. 5). A search engine like Google takes all words typed in as a query and looks for documents that contain those words. In contrast, newer search technology will analyze the user’s intent, generate similar words or questions, and include results based on the content or ideas in the webpage, not just matching words (Fox, para. 12). For example, if a user types in a search containing the word “bat,” the search engine will analyze the search to determine whether the user is seeking sporting equipment or information on an animal and it will deliver results accordingly. Once again, finding information will no longer depend on a textual tag that identifies the content of a document or file.
This will have a huge impact on librarians and patrons alike. While current library technology requires all media to carry textual descriptors, Web 3.0 search technology will eliminate this need. Librarians will no longer need to predict how users will search for media when cataloguing materials. Instead, technology will analyze the content and the user’s intent and match the patron with the materials he or she is seeking. On the one hand, this may lead to the elimination of library jobs as patrons become increasingly independent. However, many patrons may still require assistance using updated technology. Therefore, it is logical to predict that as Web 3.0 revolutionizes the search engine, the role of librarians will shift to helping patrons implement new technology and decide which technology will best lead them to the information they seek.
Links
The Music Genome Project
http://www.pandora.com/
eVision Visual Search
http://www.evisionglobal.com/
Discussion Questions
1.) As these new search engines become prevalent, in what ways do you think librarians will still be necessary to help patrons find materials? How do you see our role changing?
2.) How do you think NextGen patrons, who are accustomed to keyword searches like Google, will adapt to Web 3.0? Will it be a smooth transition, or will even seasoned NextGen patrons face a learning curve?
3.) What are some negative results that will come from Web 3.0? What are some positives?
4.) Will the transition to Web 3.0 go smoothly? What challenges might librarians and patrons encounter when trying to implement this new technology?
References
Abram, Stephen, & Luther, Judy (2004). Born with the Chip. Library Journal, 129 (8), p. 24-37.
Evans, Woody (2008). Embryonic Web 3.0. Searcher, 16 (1), p. 12.
Fox, Vanessa (2008). The Promise of Natural Language Search. Information Today, 25 (1), p. 50.
Librarian 2.0
Librarian 2.0—Now! (That’s you)
by Mary Lane
What are the responsibilities of a librarian 2.0?
Leaders in the information field are still weeding out the bad and embracing the good. Their voices echo excitement and concern. Some questions information professionals are asking merit some consideration. Should we be using RSS feeds? Do podcasts demand the attention the hype suggests? What about RFID? I feel uncomfortable about e-books. How can we leverage web 2.0 to better reach user’s goals? Digital rights management cannot be ignored. It is easy to get caught up in a whirlwind of debate over what should and shouldn’t be happening regarding recent technologies. It is important to remind onself that these issues are library (read: community) specific and, like other library issues, one must thoroughly weigh advantages, disadvantages, ethics, and user demands. Some professionals, (e.g. E.Soundararajan) suggest understanding the Librarian 2.0 concept forces transformation into “Knowledge Professionals”. Their theoretical model looks like:
Stephen Abram offers an excellent list of how this model might translate into praxis:
Librarian 2.0 is the guru of the information age. Librarian 2.0 strives to
• Understand the power of the Web 2.0 opportunities
• Learn the major tools of Web 2.0 and Library 2.0
• Combine e-resources and print formats and is container and format agnostic
• Is device independent and uses and delivers to everything from laptops to PDAs to iPods
• Develop targeted federated search and adopts the OpenURL standard
• Connect people and technology and information in context
• Doesn’t shy away from non-traditional cataloging and classification and chooses tagging, tag clouds, folksonomies, and user-driven content descriptions and classifications where appropriate
• Embrace non-textual information and the power of pictures, moving images, sight, and sound
• Understand the “long tail” and leverages the power of old and new content
• See the potential in using content sources like the Open Content Alliance, Google Print, and Open WorldCat
• Connect users to expert discussions, conversations, and communities of practice and participates there as well
• Use the latest tools of communication (such as Skype) to connect content, expertise, information coaching, and people
• Use and develops advanced social networks to enterprise advantage
• Connect with everyone using their communication mode of choice – telephone, Skype, IM, SMS, texting, email, virtual reference, etc.
• Encourage user driven metadata and user developed content and commentary
• Understand the wisdom of crowds and the emerging roles and impacts of the blogosphere, Web syndicasphere and wikisphere
How will these responsibilities affect individuals entering the profession?
Librarians in the new millennium must assimilate rapidly changing technologies and apply them to the central purpose of ensuring that patrons get their desired information. As Woody Evans states "Library 2.0... demands...that we guide patrons because [librarians] are experts rather than gatekeepers."(Evans 84) In the larger context of social networking, librarians must learn and use electronic social networking schemas to become user advocates. It is important to note that people are gathering in many different ways, not just in physical buildings and on the streets. The emergence of electronic "gathering places" has created a "multi-dimensional personality", with which librarians must interact. To meet patrons needs, librarians should learn to connect with the multiple "dimensions" of users, by using multiple means of communication.
It is therefore the responsibility of all librarians to learn and use online social networking to connect with patrons. As Stephen Abrams notes, a 2.0 Librarian should connect people with technology and information in context. (Abram 81) Much of the new Web 2.0 and Web 3.0 paradigms revolve around different forms of human communication via the Web. "Web 2.0 is ultimately a social phenomenon". (Abram 78) Most social networking technology is Web 2.0 centric. Abrams avers that Really Simple Syndication, Wikis, Ajax mashups, blogs, podcasting, and other new technologies are all part of the Web 2.0 paradigm. (Abrams 77)
Also patrons (i.e. users) can interact with and change content themselves, as opposed being presented with it. An example of users interacting with content is the use of folksonomies. Folksonomies, a component of the Web 2.0 paradigm, utilize the concept of collaborative tagging, which lets a community decide on the keywords associated with content. [Notess 42] This concept is extended to include tag clouds. "Tag clouds display the tags with an emphasis on the most popular ones" [Notess 42].
Questions:
1) What do you feel is most and least critical from Abram’s list of what a Librarian 2.0 should strive toward?
2) Do you see Librarian 2.0 mentors in your community?
3) Are you ready to become a Librarian 2.0?
E.Soundararajan, C. J. a. M. S. (2007). Role of library and information professionals in the knowledge environment. Information Science & Technology
Evans, W. "What Drives You?”. Library Journal (1976) v. 132 no. 20 (December 2007) p. 84
Notess, G. R. The Terrible Twos: Web 2.0, Library 2.0, and More. Online (Weston, Conn.) v. 30 no. 3 (May/June 2006) p. 40-2
Seiss, J., & Lorig, J. (2007). Out Front With Stephen Abram: A Guide for Information Leaders. American Library Association.
by Mary Lane
What are the responsibilities of a librarian 2.0?
Leaders in the information field are still weeding out the bad and embracing the good. Their voices echo excitement and concern. Some questions information professionals are asking merit some consideration. Should we be using RSS feeds? Do podcasts demand the attention the hype suggests? What about RFID? I feel uncomfortable about e-books. How can we leverage web 2.0 to better reach user’s goals? Digital rights management cannot be ignored. It is easy to get caught up in a whirlwind of debate over what should and shouldn’t be happening regarding recent technologies. It is important to remind onself that these issues are library (read: community) specific and, like other library issues, one must thoroughly weigh advantages, disadvantages, ethics, and user demands. Some professionals, (e.g. E.Soundararajan) suggest understanding the Librarian 2.0 concept forces transformation into “Knowledge Professionals”. Their theoretical model looks like:
Stephen Abram offers an excellent list of how this model might translate into praxis:
Librarian 2.0 is the guru of the information age. Librarian 2.0 strives to
• Understand the power of the Web 2.0 opportunities
• Learn the major tools of Web 2.0 and Library 2.0
• Combine e-resources and print formats and is container and format agnostic
• Is device independent and uses and delivers to everything from laptops to PDAs to iPods
• Develop targeted federated search and adopts the OpenURL standard
• Connect people and technology and information in context
• Doesn’t shy away from non-traditional cataloging and classification and chooses tagging, tag clouds, folksonomies, and user-driven content descriptions and classifications where appropriate
• Embrace non-textual information and the power of pictures, moving images, sight, and sound
• Understand the “long tail” and leverages the power of old and new content
• See the potential in using content sources like the Open Content Alliance, Google Print, and Open WorldCat
• Connect users to expert discussions, conversations, and communities of practice and participates there as well
• Use the latest tools of communication (such as Skype) to connect content, expertise, information coaching, and people
• Use and develops advanced social networks to enterprise advantage
• Connect with everyone using their communication mode of choice – telephone, Skype, IM, SMS, texting, email, virtual reference, etc.
• Encourage user driven metadata and user developed content and commentary
• Understand the wisdom of crowds and the emerging roles and impacts of the blogosphere, Web syndicasphere and wikisphere
How will these responsibilities affect individuals entering the profession?
Librarians in the new millennium must assimilate rapidly changing technologies and apply them to the central purpose of ensuring that patrons get their desired information. As Woody Evans states "Library 2.0... demands...that we guide patrons because [librarians] are experts rather than gatekeepers."(Evans 84) In the larger context of social networking, librarians must learn and use electronic social networking schemas to become user advocates. It is important to note that people are gathering in many different ways, not just in physical buildings and on the streets. The emergence of electronic "gathering places" has created a "multi-dimensional personality", with which librarians must interact. To meet patrons needs, librarians should learn to connect with the multiple "dimensions" of users, by using multiple means of communication.
It is therefore the responsibility of all librarians to learn and use online social networking to connect with patrons. As Stephen Abrams notes, a 2.0 Librarian should connect people with technology and information in context. (Abram 81) Much of the new Web 2.0 and Web 3.0 paradigms revolve around different forms of human communication via the Web. "Web 2.0 is ultimately a social phenomenon". (Abram 78) Most social networking technology is Web 2.0 centric. Abrams avers that Really Simple Syndication, Wikis, Ajax mashups, blogs, podcasting, and other new technologies are all part of the Web 2.0 paradigm. (Abrams 77)
Also patrons (i.e. users) can interact with and change content themselves, as opposed being presented with it. An example of users interacting with content is the use of folksonomies. Folksonomies, a component of the Web 2.0 paradigm, utilize the concept of collaborative tagging, which lets a community decide on the keywords associated with content. [Notess 42] This concept is extended to include tag clouds. "Tag clouds display the tags with an emphasis on the most popular ones" [Notess 42].
Questions:
1) What do you feel is most and least critical from Abram’s list of what a Librarian 2.0 should strive toward?
2) Do you see Librarian 2.0 mentors in your community?
3) Are you ready to become a Librarian 2.0?
E.Soundararajan, C. J. a. M. S. (2007). Role of library and information professionals in the knowledge environment. Information Science & Technology
Evans, W. "What Drives You?”. Library Journal (1976) v. 132 no. 20 (December 2007) p. 84
Notess, G. R. The Terrible Twos: Web 2.0, Library 2.0, and More. Online (Weston, Conn.) v. 30 no. 3 (May/June 2006) p. 40-2
Seiss, J., & Lorig, J. (2007). Out Front With Stephen Abram: A Guide for Information Leaders. American Library Association.
Sunday, March 2, 2008
What is Web 2.0, Library 2.0 and How do they interconnect?
Before dissecting the intricacies of Web 2.0, one must understand what the first generation of the internet held for users. Web 1.0 is described by Curran, Murray, and Christian (2007) as “a one-dimensional service that takes people to the information they require.” In other words, users were required to go to the sources. Websites in the 1.0 age were fixed, meaning users viewed what was there, but any interaction done did not involve the content of the website beyond clicking the mouse to change the site (Bolan, Canada, Cullin, 2007). Abram (2007) tells readers that Web 1.0 involved a cool kind of interactivity in which a user clicked to send an email, then clicked to get the response (p. 77).
Web 2.0 ushers in what Stephen Abram considers a “hotter” web because a higher level of interactivity is involved to heat it up. This interactivity involves “…conversations, interpersonal networking, personalization, and individualism” (Siess, 2007, p. 77). The term “Web 2.0” was initially used by Tim O’Reilly in 2004, and despite the disputes that have risen about its true meaning, the Web 2.0 concept is being used to expand the user experience making it easier to collaborate and interact with others. Blogs, wikis, tags, social networks, clouds, and RSS feeds are all examples of technologies engaged so that users are able to socialize and interact on sites such as Flickr, Listible, Google maps, and Digg (Notess, 2006). Internet users are no longer simply viewing a website, they are empowered to change it. Wikipedia is one of the prime examples of Web 2.0 technology in which users are enabled to alter content, as is Amazon’s feature allowing customer comments. Anyone with a computer, a username, and a password can alter many of these social networking sites. Interactivity is the key.
Library 2.0 is a term “…believed to have been first made by Michael Casey in his blog LibraryCrunch” (Curran, Murry, & Christian, 2007). According to Sarah Houghton-Jan, author of the blog “Librarian in Black,” Library 2.0 is not just about the virtual library, but the physical library as well. She recommends making libraries “…more interactive, collaborative, and driven by community needs” (quoted in Block, 2007). By offering blogs and “collaborative photo sites” (p. 130) to patrons on the website and teen game nights in the physical building, libraries can zero in on what is important to the user. In St. Joseph, Indiana, the public library has formulated a website based on user needs. The website is accessible 24 hours a day, 7 days a week and features an instant messaging chat reference service, community information, and gaming blogs, just to name a few (Block, 2007, p. 131-2). The website itself appears to be made up of blogs that invite user input. A link to subscribe to the RSS feed for the site is located at the top of the blog page. Ann Arbor District Library has also dedicated its site to public input. Block (2007) states that “…the site is a collection of blogs, including one in which library director Josie Parker chats with her users” (p. 132). Blogs headline events at the library, new releases, and much more. “Parker says over 7,000 people registered to use the site in its first three weeks, and the Weblogs ‘are even being used so the public can talk with each other. The library is the public forum’” (Block, 2007, p. 133). Unique to this site is a service called PictureAnnArbor. It “…gives users ‘the opportunity to contribute digital copies of your Ann Arbor photos and documents, and easily share them on the Web’” (Block, 2007, p. 133).
All of these Library 2.0 services are possible in conjunction with Web 2.0 technology that prompt users to interact in a social venue whether it be contributing comments to a blog, altering information on a wiki, sharing digital photos or video, or pulling information from a site using an RSS feed aggregator. Web 2.0 and Library 2.0 are interconnected by the very fact that they encourage user contribution.
Questions:
1. How do the websites at St. Joseph Public Library and Ann Arbor District Library compare to the website of your home library system?
2. How likely are you to sign up to participate in blogs that your library might create on its website? If you are likely to participate, what blog subjects would interest you?
3. In your opinion, has your home library moved past 1.0 technology into the Library 2.0 generation?
References:
(2008). Ann Arbor District Library. Retrieved February 18, 2008, from aadl.org Web site: http://www.aadl.org/
Block, M. (2007). The Thriving Library: Successful Strategies for Challenging Times. Information Today: Medford, N.J.
Bolan, K., Canada, M., Cullin, R. (Winter 2007). Web, Library, and Teen Services 2.0. Young Adult Library Services, 5, Retrieved february 10, 2008, from http://vnweb.hwwilsonweb.com.proxy.lib.wayne.edu/hww/results/getResults.jhtml?_DARGS=/hww/results/results_common.jhtml.7#record_14
Curran, K., Murray, M., Christian, M. (2007). Taking the Information to the Public Through Library 2.0. Library Hi Tech, 25, Retrieved February 15, 2008, from http://proquest.umi.com.proxy.lib.wayne.edu/pqdweb?index=1&did=1355784531&SrchMode=1&sid=1&Fmt=2&VInst=PROD&VType=PQD&RQT=309&VName=PQD&TS=1203365430&clientId=14288
Notess, G. (May/June 2006). The Terrible Twos: Web 2.0, Library 2.0, and More. Online, 30, Retrieved February 15, 2008, from http://find.galegroup.com.proxy.lib.wayne.edu/itx/retrieve.do?contentSet=IAC-Documents&resultListType=RESULT_LIST&qrySerId=Locale%28en%2CUS%2C%29%3AFQE%3D%28JN%2CNone%2C8%29%22Online%22%3AAnd%3ALQE%3D%28DA%2CNone%2C8%2920060501%24&sgHitCountType=None&inPS=true&sort=DateDescend&searchType=PublicationSearchForm&tabID=T003&prodId=AONE&searchId=R1¤tPosition=64&userGroupName=lom_waynesu&docId=A148931595&docType=IAC
Siess, J. & Lorig, J. (2007). Out Front with Stephen Abram. Chicago: American Library Association.
(2003). SJCPL. Retrieved February 18, 2008, from Saint Joseph County Public Library Web site: http://sjcpl.lib.in.us/
Web 2.0 ushers in what Stephen Abram considers a “hotter” web because a higher level of interactivity is involved to heat it up. This interactivity involves “…conversations, interpersonal networking, personalization, and individualism” (Siess, 2007, p. 77). The term “Web 2.0” was initially used by Tim O’Reilly in 2004, and despite the disputes that have risen about its true meaning, the Web 2.0 concept is being used to expand the user experience making it easier to collaborate and interact with others. Blogs, wikis, tags, social networks, clouds, and RSS feeds are all examples of technologies engaged so that users are able to socialize and interact on sites such as Flickr, Listible, Google maps, and Digg (Notess, 2006). Internet users are no longer simply viewing a website, they are empowered to change it. Wikipedia is one of the prime examples of Web 2.0 technology in which users are enabled to alter content, as is Amazon’s feature allowing customer comments. Anyone with a computer, a username, and a password can alter many of these social networking sites. Interactivity is the key.
Library 2.0 is a term “…believed to have been first made by Michael Casey in his blog LibraryCrunch” (Curran, Murry, & Christian, 2007). According to Sarah Houghton-Jan, author of the blog “Librarian in Black,” Library 2.0 is not just about the virtual library, but the physical library as well. She recommends making libraries “…more interactive, collaborative, and driven by community needs” (quoted in Block, 2007). By offering blogs and “collaborative photo sites” (p. 130) to patrons on the website and teen game nights in the physical building, libraries can zero in on what is important to the user. In St. Joseph, Indiana, the public library has formulated a website based on user needs. The website is accessible 24 hours a day, 7 days a week and features an instant messaging chat reference service, community information, and gaming blogs, just to name a few (Block, 2007, p. 131-2). The website itself appears to be made up of blogs that invite user input. A link to subscribe to the RSS feed for the site is located at the top of the blog page. Ann Arbor District Library has also dedicated its site to public input. Block (2007) states that “…the site is a collection of blogs, including one in which library director Josie Parker chats with her users” (p. 132). Blogs headline events at the library, new releases, and much more. “Parker says over 7,000 people registered to use the site in its first three weeks, and the Weblogs ‘are even being used so the public can talk with each other. The library is the public forum’” (Block, 2007, p. 133). Unique to this site is a service called PictureAnnArbor. It “…gives users ‘the opportunity to contribute digital copies of your Ann Arbor photos and documents, and easily share them on the Web’” (Block, 2007, p. 133).
All of these Library 2.0 services are possible in conjunction with Web 2.0 technology that prompt users to interact in a social venue whether it be contributing comments to a blog, altering information on a wiki, sharing digital photos or video, or pulling information from a site using an RSS feed aggregator. Web 2.0 and Library 2.0 are interconnected by the very fact that they encourage user contribution.
Questions:
1. How do the websites at St. Joseph Public Library and Ann Arbor District Library compare to the website of your home library system?
2. How likely are you to sign up to participate in blogs that your library might create on its website? If you are likely to participate, what blog subjects would interest you?
3. In your opinion, has your home library moved past 1.0 technology into the Library 2.0 generation?
References:
(2008). Ann Arbor District Library. Retrieved February 18, 2008, from aadl.org Web site: http://www.aadl.org/
Block, M. (2007). The Thriving Library: Successful Strategies for Challenging Times. Information Today: Medford, N.J.
Bolan, K., Canada, M., Cullin, R. (Winter 2007). Web, Library, and Teen Services 2.0. Young Adult Library Services, 5, Retrieved february 10, 2008, from http://vnweb.hwwilsonweb.com.proxy.lib.wayne.edu/hww/results/getResults.jhtml?_DARGS=/hww/results/results_common.jhtml.7#record_14
Curran, K., Murray, M., Christian, M. (2007). Taking the Information to the Public Through Library 2.0. Library Hi Tech, 25, Retrieved February 15, 2008, from http://proquest.umi.com.proxy.lib.wayne.edu/pqdweb?index=1&did=1355784531&SrchMode=1&sid=1&Fmt=2&VInst=PROD&VType=PQD&RQT=309&VName=PQD&TS=1203365430&clientId=14288
Notess, G. (May/June 2006). The Terrible Twos: Web 2.0, Library 2.0, and More. Online, 30, Retrieved February 15, 2008, from http://find.galegroup.com.proxy.lib.wayne.edu/itx/retrieve.do?contentSet=IAC-Documents&resultListType=RESULT_LIST&qrySerId=Locale%28en%2CUS%2C%29%3AFQE%3D%28JN%2CNone%2C8%29%22Online%22%3AAnd%3ALQE%3D%28DA%2CNone%2C8%2920060501%24&sgHitCountType=None&inPS=true&sort=DateDescend&searchType=PublicationSearchForm&tabID=T003&prodId=AONE&searchId=R1¤tPosition=64&userGroupName=lom_waynesu&docId=A148931595&docType=IAC
Siess, J. & Lorig, J. (2007). Out Front with Stephen Abram. Chicago: American Library Association.
(2003). SJCPL. Retrieved February 18, 2008, from Saint Joseph County Public Library Web site: http://sjcpl.lib.in.us/
Saturday, March 1, 2008
Web 2.0 in the Library: Twittering, Blogging, Tagging
It is no secret that the concept of Library 2.0 is revolutionizing the LIS profession. New web tools are constantly being designed and implemented, and librarians too are continuously thinking up new creative ways to use these tools to improve their service. It is becoming increasingly important for libraries to make a shift and embrace all the internet has to offer. As John Blyberg warns, “[Library 2.0] is not an option. If we don’t acknowledge the weighty significance of L2, we will not just be running the risk of sliding into obscurity, we just won’t be that important to society. We will become the functional equivalent of back-room storage full of green hanging-file-folder boxes” (Blyberg, 2006). Read on to find out how librarians can incorporate the technologies of Web 2.0 into today’s library.
Social Networks (mySpace, Facebook, Twitter)
Social networks are already being used by millions to keep up to date with their communities be they social, geographical, professional, institutional or interest based. Every library has its own community (even corporate and academic libraries), and so it is only natural that LIS professionals are taking advantage of all these networks have to offer. Meredith Farkas started using Facebook just for fun, but soon realized that it could benefit her professional life as well. As she puts it, “…I examined my list of friends on Facebook, and realized I was looking at an online Rolodex full of experts. I saw experts on podcasting, library catalogs, engineering resources, web design, and much more. Here was this network of smart people who were likely ready and willing to share their knowledge. All I had to do is message them in Facebook” (Farkas, 2008).
Social networking can also be used to the benefit of patrons. The Missouri River Regional Library has over 236,000 items in its collection and around 53,000 card carrying members (WebJunction, 2007). It can be difficult to keep their enormous community informed about library happenings, so the MRRL started using Twitter. Any patron can subscribe to the Twitter feed and receive the short updates which include internet links if they are interested and want to find out more about an event. MRRL also has its own mySpace page (see link below) where they have a visual list of new CDs, DVDs and books, links to various topics being discussed on their blog, and general library information.
Social Networking Links
A Guide to Twitter in Libraries
http://oedb.org/blogs/ilibrarian/2007/a-guide-to-twitter-in-libraries/
The Missouri River Regional Library mySpace page
http://www.myspace.com/missouririverregionallib
Top Ten Facebook Apps for Librarians
http://oedb.org/blogs/ilibrarian/2007/top-ten-facebook-apps-for-librarians-part-one/
Blogs & Podcasts
Scores of librarians are now embracing the blogging and podcasting aspect of Web 2.0. Recently a survey was conducted with over 800 LIS professionals who maintained a blog. When asked to list their top three motivations for blogging, “The majority (69%) identified sharing ideas with others. Other popular reasons include building community (38%), contributing to the profession (23.2%), and reaching out to patrons (23%)” (Farkas, 2007). Many others also responded that blogging helped them “…keep up with trends in the profession” (Farkas, 2007). Blogs are an excellent tool for reaching more people than the library setting usually allows. Additionally, if comments on posts are allowed they can also be a great way for libraries and librarians to receive feedback from their patrons and colleagues.
Podcasts can come in audio or video form, and just like blogs can have a very positive impact on librarian/patron relations. To get started in podcasting Jason Griffey suggests first “identify existing content that might translate well into an audio or video format. Many librarians who are experimenting with podcasts have started with the ‘virtual tour,’ since video is a natural for showing patrons around” (Griffey, 2007). Podcasts are especially great tools for instruction, and librarians might use them to show or tell patrons how to use certain equipment or reference sites. They might also be used for weekly book reviews, by children’s librarians for story times, or as information updates for the community. For non-native speakers of the librarian’s primary language, podcasts are great because they can be replayed infinitely for better comprehension (Griffey, 2007).
Blogs & Podcasts Links
Alternative Teen Services (blog)
http://yalibrarian.com/
Denver Public Library Podcasts
http://podcast.denverlibrary.org/
Library Stuff (blog)
http://www.librarystuff.net/
Princeton Public Library Poetry Podcasts
pplpoetpodcast.wordpress.com/
Other 2.0 Ideas
The answer to the age old question “What do I read next?” can be tackled at an entirely new level with the help of Web 2.0. Neal Wyatt has us imagine a patron asking this question while giving you the name of a book they’ve read by an author they love; one you’re wholly unfamiliar with. You search for that book in your library’s catalog “...only to discover that not only do you own it, but your sf/fantasy expert has entered some read-alike suggestions and provided a brief comment on the major appeals of the genre. In addition, patrons have tagged the book with a range of descriptors, submitted their own reader reviews and reading suggestions, and given the book five stars. Suddenly, you know a great deal more about this book and can not only make some better informed suggestions but can also invite the patron to join in the dialog by submitting comments, reviews, and ratings” (Wyatt, 2007). This is the power of Web 2.0 when combined with Reader’s Advisory. The image above is not just a fantasy either, the Ann Arbor District Libraries in Michigan have already implemented a system like the one described above. On their website “… patrons are encouraged to rate books, tag titles, jot notes on old-fashioned catalog card images, and write reviews” (Wyatt, 2007). Click on their library link below and try it out for yourself!
Though Web 2.0 does have a lot of interesting and exciting applications, it also should come with a disclaimer. Michael Stephens warns, “It's easy to think your library should suddenly take on every tool and every new service that blogging librarians and conference speakers are discussing. That should not be the case” (Stephens, 2007). Obviously in the real world every library has its restrictions in budget, time, and staff available to pursue new applications. It would be unrealistic for every library to try to pursue all of the ideas listed above. Stephens suggests, “Don't let ‘Oh, shiny!’ catch you. Implement technology as a means to serve users, not for coolness” (Stephens, 2007). Evaluate which Web 2.0 applications would best serve your community, and implement those.
Other 2.0 Ideas Links
Ann Arbor District Library
www.aadl.org/
(Pull up the page for a book you like, look to the upper left for the “card catalog image”, “patron reviews” and “tags” links.)
Questions:
1) What Web 2.0 technologies might benefit the community you live in most? Why?
2)What innovative Web 2.0 ideas have you seen or read about other libraries putting into use? Provide links if possible.
3) What additional Web 2.0 ideas would you like to see utilized in libraries?
Works Cited
Blyberg, J. (2006). 11 Reasons Why Library 2.0 Exists and Matters. Retrieved February 27, 2008, from www.blyberg.net/2006/01/09/11-reasons-why-library-20-exists-and-matters.
Farkas, M. (2007, December). The Bloggers Among Us. Library Journal. 132(20), p. 40
Farkas, M. (2008, January/February). What Friends Are For. American Libraries. 39(1\2), p.36
Griffey, J. (2007, June 15). Podcast 1 2 3. Library Journal. 132(11), p. 32
Stephens, M. (2007, December). Web 2.0 and You. American Libraries, 38(11), p.32
WebJunction. (2007, July 31). Twitter and the Missouri River Regional Library. WebJunction. Retrieved February 27, 2008, from http://webjunction.org/do/DisplayContent?id=17518&source=rss
Wyatt, N. (2007, November). 2.0 for Readers. Library Journal. 132(18) p. 30
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)