Paul Anderson, author of this article, is a graduate of Leeds University in the area of computer science, and was at the time of publication (2007) Technical Editor of JISC Technology & Standards Watch. He has over twenty years experience working in computing both in academia and industry.
This article looks at the origins of the term Web 2.0 and its implications for libraries and their services, which has taken the interest of the library community via the term Library 2.0. Anderson proposes a framework for analysis surrounding the discussion of Web 2.0. He concludes by outlining the impact of Web 2.0 on libraries and their services as well as outlining the potential for Librarians to lead the way in the further development of Web 2.0 technologies and services.
The term Library 2.0 was reportedly coined by Michael E. Casey in September 2005 on his blog Library Crunch (Stephens, 2007 p.15). This came around the same time as the seminal “What is Web 2.0” was published by Tim O’Reilly who along with Dale Dougherty of O’Reilly Media reportedly coined and conceptualised the original term in 2004, (Maness, 2006). Web 2.0 generally refers to a second generation of services available on the World Wide Web that lets people collaborate and share information online (Sauers, 2009 p. 2). In contrast to the static nature of the original Internet, Web 2.0 is user driven and centred, (O’Reilly, 2005). Anderson gives the example of Web 2.0 technologies such as blogs, wikis and podcasts, which are being embraced by libraries and librarians along with social network and media sites like Facebook and Flicker.
It is interesting to note Anderson’s assertion that at the time of his articles publication (2007) there was a lack of theoretical work, formal definitions and frameworks surrounding the term Library 2.0 as there is evidence indicating otherwise. The paper “Library 2.0 Theory: Web 2.0 and Its Implications for Libraries” by Jack M. Maness published in June 2006 (mentioned by Anderson) is a good example of the clear in-depth peer related investigation going on around the term in this case outside the blogosphere which Anderson and Maness himself mentions as being central to the L 2.0 discussion. Maness (2006) proposes limiting the definition to web-based services, and not library services more generally as this avoids potential confusion and sufficiently allows the term to be researched, further theorized, and renders it more useful in professional discourse.
Further, in 2007 Casey co- authored a book titled “Library 2.0 A GUIDE TO Participatory Library Service”, which outlined the essential concepts behind Library 2.0. The publishing of Casey’s book gives a clear indication that thought had been given to the need for a definitive theoretical framework and analysis of the term and its implications for libraries well before 2007. Casey and co-author Laura Savastinuk would have spent a good deal of time laying the theoretical ground work to write the book and that as the two (original) thinkers on the term they would have understood the need for an authoritative text much like O’Reilly’s “What is Web 2.0” to give theoretical backing to their ideas.
Despite the potentially misleading titled of the article, which seems to imply caution of these new glistening technological advances Anderson appears to support the embrace of Web 2.0 technologies in the transformation of the libraries of the future. Anderson believes that the potential success of Library 2.0 rests on a clear framework of interpretation able to engage and deal with change as it arises when he asserts “A robust framework will be important for analysing and evaluating what is happening and what is going to work in the context of librarianship” (Anderson, 2007 p. 195). Anderson’s proposed framework for analysis of Web 2.0 centres around what he terms Six Big Ideas (Anderson, 2007 p. 197). He believes these are driving the development of Web 2.0, providing a theoretical framework both to understand current developments and evaluate future ones. Anderson summarises these as: Individual production and user generated content (UGC), harnessing the power of the crowd, data on an epic scale, the architecture of participation, network effects and openness (Anderson, 2007 p. 196).
With newer Web 2.0 technologies showing limitations regarding respect for copyright and privacy, Anderson asserts that the librarians’ public sector ethos could be a valuable constituent in the building of future technologies. Anderson proposes that Librarians are in a strong position to influence how new types of technology develop and are used within libraries and perhaps more widely. In light of Anderson’s background in computer science and JISC Technology & Standards Watch it is perhaps no coincidence that he draws this conclusion which is not really from the point of view of professional Librarians like Maness and Casey who see the Library 2.0 as a model for adaptation of constant and purposeful change rather than an avenue for technological innovation.
While the article speaks of the ongoing discussion surrounding Web 2.0 and libraries it is unfortunate that Anderson assumed there was a lack of peer published theoretical work surrounding Library 2.0 in 2007. This assumption means the article is missing the voice of those like Maness, Casey and Savastinuk, which would have balanced out the article, adding to the length and depth of the articles arguments.
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, doi 10.1177/0961000607083210
Casey, M. E, & Savastinuk L. C. (2007). Library 2.0 A GUIDE TO Participatory Library Service. Medford, New Jersey: Information Today, Inc.
Maness, J. M. (2006). Library 2.0 Theory: Web 2.0 and Its Implications for Libraries. Webology, Volume 3, Number 2, June, 2006, http://webology.ir/2006/v3n2/a25.html#7
O'Reilly, T. (2005). What is web 2.0? Retrieved from http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/a/oreilly/tim/news/2005/09/30/what-is-web-20.html#mememap
Sauers, M. P. (2009) Searching 2.0, London: Facet.
No comments:
Post a Comment