Digital Citizenship & High Speed Internet Connectivity

Article #4: Missingham, R. (2009). Encouraging the digital economy and digital citizenship. Australian Library Journal, 58(4), 386-399.

Missingham makes a case for securing high speed internet access for all Australians, and leverages this argument by providing an example of how public libraries are improving the situation, through a nationwide opt-in consortium, providing access to online subscriptions to important databases. She does however, identify that this one example is not enough to rectify the problems of bringing Australians into the era of digital citizenship. Missingham also cites emotive evidence arguing for the increasing need, for this high speed, broadband access. As this reviewer is herself, a librarian, who is highly aware of the current issues, and supports the need for affordable, reliable broadband access, Missingham is already preaching to the converted. There are however, some potential assumptions made. This review will attempt to comment and critique the points raised.

The overall lack of cited evidence from the vast body of library related research literature on digital citizenship, the perceived digital divide or the two tier system in Australia, with regards to the information rich and the information poor is this reader’s first criticism. Included, is cited evidence from submissions to the Government’s Inquiry into the Role of Libraries in the Online Environment. While these submissions are, of course valid real world, opinions, which can be accessed, via the URL given in the reference list of Missingham’s article, the report, which was written as a result of these submissions, is itself a Government report, which has not gone through the rigorous peer review process.

The lack of cited research literature may in fact be explained by the origin of the paper- it was originally a presentation to the ALIA Public Libraries Summit, where it can probably be assumed that the audience were in fact already aware of the supporting body of research literature. Regardless, there is a lack of this evidence in the published paper itself. One only needs to do a quick scan of the literature to see that there is indeed a body of the literature that supports the idea of a digital divide (see Bertot, 2003; Foster, 2000; Mossberger, Tolbert & McNeal, 2008) and corroborates the fact that there is indeed an infrastructure difference between those who live in the country and those who do not, in the Australian context. There is also a body of literature, which suggests that the digital divide concept is far too simplistic to describe the barriers to Internet use in Australia (Willis & Tranter, 2006) This however goes beyond the scope of this review.

There is the implication that this reader takes from reading Missingham’s paper, that the author stakes her argument, advocating for high speed internet access, on the need for Australians to become digital citizens and to “participate in the digital world” (Missingham, p. 387). It is not clear from Missingham’s paper what she (or the literature) defines as a digital citizen. It is not until the conclusion of her paper that she refers to the link between digital citizenship and social inclusion. Warshauer (2003 in Mossberger et al, 2008) suggests that digital citizenship encourages what has “elsewhere been called social inclusion” (p. 1). In her paper, Missingham provides a ‘first principles’ demonstration on how social inclusion principles relate firsthand to digital citizenship in the Australian context, by citing the Government’s social inclusion website. This serves as her final argument, for the need to provide all Australians with high speed internet connectivity.

Missingham uses the public library initiative to provide access to several databases for Australians on an opt-in basis for public libraries, as an example of what public libraries are doing to advance Australian’s digital citizenship. If we consider other definitions (or other facets) of digital citizenship, further questions are raised, which lend support to Missingham’s argument for the need for more funding. If we refer to a definition of the digital citizen from Mossberger, et al. (2008), they refer to digital citizens as those who use the Internet “regularly and effectively”. This presumably relates to a certain technical proficiency with using the Internet. The Missingham article touches on the point that “country libraries don’t seem to provide training for internet use: they don’t have enough staff” (2009, p. 389).

If there is a lack of staff or lack of learning opportunities to teach people the information literacy skills on how to access this information, more funding needs to be made available, which is one of the recommendations made by Missingham for public libraries to provide training to support use, of which requires Government funding. (2009, p. 397). A strong argument supporting the need for additional funding is cited in the article, via one of the submissions made to the Inquiry into the Role of Libraries in the Online Environment, where “funding in New South Wales is over 50% less than any other State” (Field, 2002 in Missingham, 2009, p. 389). Where, however, is the cited evidence for this statistic? This relates back to this reader’s original criticism of the lack of overall evidence from the research literature.

Missingham cites reasons for the importance of access to quality information, and for the provision of programmes which develop successful literacy skills. By reading between the lines, it appears that Missingham goes on to argue that increasing access to the internet via high speed connectivity will aide in increasing literacy, and uses evidence to support her argument. The evidence, however appears to be somewhat weak, at best. She cites an Australian Bureau of Statistics report on adult literacy. While public libraries are ‘active in the delivery of such programs’ (2009, p. 396), there appears to be a weak correlation between those people who scored on or above the minimum literacy score for people to meet the complex demands of everyday life, with those who used the internet. Missingham is arguing that more people who are on or above the minimum literacy level were more likely to have used the Internet. This is a statistic that immediately adds weight to the argument for the need for high speed internet connectivity, yet there is no indication that there is in fact this correlation. Perhaps there are other influences in these people’s lives, that are not directly attributed to Internet effects, which are improving their literacy levels. It is unclear from Missingham’s article, where this information was extrapolated from.

Missingham then goes on to discuss the barriers that exist which prevent Australians from participating in the digital economy. Connectivity (and the associated lack of infrastructure) is one major barrier she cites. She mentions the Government’s National Broadband Network initiative, which is committed to enabling the majority of Australians be connected to high speed internet. It may be fitting that the one year anniversary of the Government’s announcement of the National Broadband Network has just passed. Articles published in the Sydney Morning Herald and the Australian on the anniversary of the announcement, raise questions on the success of the initiative by citing the challenges that continue to stall the roll out, as well as the millions of consultative dollars spent on the initiative.

In conclusion, Missingham provides a good overview of the barriers and issues that continue to face Australians in their bid to become “digital citizens”. However, the lack of cited evidence from the body of research literature is of great concern. Despite this, it is clear that there continues to be a need for Australians to access good quality information, in order to be informed, socially included citizens. Missingham cites the ERA public library consortium initiative as one way in which libraries can assist, but concludes that more needs to be done, in the way of a National Broadband Network. It is apparent that there is still a long way to go, judging by the passing of the one year anniversary since the announcement of this network, with as yet, no network in sight.

Other links
Note: My reading for this assignment fueled my interest and led me to the exploration of many varied and interesting avenues. While related, these are beyond the scope of this assignment. To see where my reading got me- check it out here:

Government role in high speed internet + reprisals of the proposed internet filter

• What is the role that the Government plays in the provision of high speed internet? Chang, Lee and Middleton (n.d) identified four areas which have been constraining broadband development in Australia. To check out the original article, click here.

• An editorial in the Australian suggests that the Government itself could in fact be hindering the rollout of the NBN with its proposed internet filter.

• Hungry beast video- how the internet filter (won’t) work:

• Google has expressed concerns over the proposed filter and “will not ‘voluntarily’ comply with the Government’s request that it censor YouTube videos in accordance with broad ‘refused classification’ (RC) rules” (Moses, 2010)

References

• Bertot, J.C. (2003). The multiple dimensions of the digital divide: more than the technology: 'haves’ and ‘have nots’. Government Information Quarterly, 20, 185-191.
• Chang, S., lee, H., & Middleton, C. (n.d.). The Deployment of Broadband Internet in Australia: Areas for Attention and Implications from Canada and Korea. Retrieved April 7, 2010 from http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.85.9546&rep=rep1&type=pdf
• Foster, S.P. (2000). The digital divide: some reflections. International Information & Library review,32, 437-451
• Illic, D. (2010). How the internet filter (won’t) work. Retrieved April 7, 2010 from http://hungrybeast.abc.net.au/stories/how-internet-filter-wont-work
• Moses, A. (2010). Google baulks at Conroy’s call to censor YouTube. The Sydney Morning Herald. Retrieved from www.smh.com.au
  
• Mossberger, K., Tolbert, V.J., & McNeal, R.S. (2008). Digital citizenship. Cambridge: MIT Press.
• Willis, S. & Tranter, B. (2006). Beyond the digital divide: Internet diffusion and inequality in Australia. Journal of Sociology, 42(1), 43-59
  

KM 2.0

Article #3: Levy, M. (2007). Web 2.0 implications on knowledge management. Journal of Knowledge Management, 13(1), 120-134.

Levy considers the realm of web 2.0 in a knowledge management context and evaluates the similarities and differences between the two. She concludes by highlighting the need for web 2.0 applications to be adopted for the purposes of knowledge management within an organisation. This reader is inclined to agree with her conclusion, with caveats. Levy herself, cautions us against the “free” adoption of web 2.0 applications. There are other issues, that are touched on within her paper, which are of concern, which I will discuss further.

Regardless of these concerns, web 2.0 is a force that I predict will be adopted much more widely, as corroborated by Ribiere & Tuggle (2010), who suggest that knowledge management is indeed evolving into a more participative, social and open entity (in fact, it has been dubbed KM 2.0, to reflect the web 2.0 nature of it). This is also corroborated by the fact that knowledge management journal, VINE, recently published a special edition, entirely on web 2.0 and knowledge management. However, Levy’s assessment that “success will not be triggered by adopting tools” (p. 132) alone, is indeed correct, and that along with the adoption of the tools, the cultural and conceptual shift within organisations must inevitably be a slower process that needs to be managed carefully.

This review will attempt to comment and critique the significant points raised.

In a similar manner to other researchers and authors before her, Levy cites O’Reilly when defining the difficult to define concept, of web 2.0. A scan of the literature shows the diversity in definitions of this concept, as corroborated by Levy herself (p. 122). Levy provides a comprehensive overview of the defining literature and pinpoints those traits and principles of web 2.0 that relate to the body of knowledge management. It appears that there is consensus, both anecdotally and in the literature, that the principles O’Reilly originally outlined, are important defining principles (see Anderson, 2007).

Levy then moves on to discus what she terms “Enterprise 2.0”- that is, how web 2.0 has been adopted by organisations. Levy argues that the assimilation of the concept at organszational level will be difficult. Even three years after Levy’s paper was written, it is evident that the adoption of KM2.0 has not been as wide-spread as some originally thought. The lack of widespread adoption by the world’s top companies (Ribeire & Tuggle, 2010), echoes McLeans’ (2007 in Levy, 2007) opinion that the ‘nebulous ‘idea of the KM2.0 model ‘is too reminiscent of the good old days of the internet boom’ (p. 127) and that there’s little reason for companies to ‘get caught up’ in the hype (p. 127). This reader’s personal experience of working in a large university research library, with regards to web 2.0 adoption, both from a client-focused and internal organisational KM perspective, demonstrates that web 2.0 is still very new.

Levy moves on to discus the ways in which knowledge management can be enhanced by web 2.0 principles. She cites the work of Tebutt (2007), who argues that the inherently motivating, social nature of web 2.0 is the factor that separates web 2.0 from knowledge management- where people are forced to communicate their ideas, as Tebutt feels is the case with knowledge management, people are more inclined to share and collaborate in the web 2.0 sphere. While web 2.0 focuses on people, knowledge management focuses on the organisation. Levy asks, then, how organisations can change their focus. It is here that this reader recommends proceeding with caution.

The personal, diarising nature of some web 2.0 applications, such as Facebook, Twitter and the main KM related web 2.0 application that the literature suggests workplaces to use- blogs, could lend themselves to a blurring of what is work and what is not. The culture of work instills a work identity, which is entirely separate to a person’s personal “outside of work” identity. The problems with this blurring could in fact lead to, (and have) led to potential problems in the workplace, as people ‘do and say the unexpected” (Kennan, 2010) -one only needs to consider the many work-related Facebook controversies that have been hot topics on current affairs programs. The idea of perpetual digital pasts of professionals who make their identities open online is one facet of this issue. Another real world issue is based on the personal experience of this writer’s own organisation, embarking on an organisational Facebook page. There has been discussion with regards to employees using their own personal Facebook profiles to comment on the organisation’s Facebook page. This issue relates to employees identifying themselves as people who work in an organisation, versus the need to keep work and personal identities separate. The fact that Graham, Faix & Hartman (2007) have identified the humanising factor of having librarians on Facebook, with their own personal profiles, as a benefit, to library presence on Facebook, only adds to highlighting the complexity of this issue.

Another critique of Levy’s article is her concluding suggestion to embrace KM 2.0. This relates to the original principles of KM. It is my understanding that KM relates to sharing information and knowledge more efficiently. Concerns are raised, with regards to potentially sensitive or private information. If there is a blurring of the distinction between work and play, organisational knowledge could be inadvertently leaked or shared with others who should not be privy to such information. Hancock (2009), in a blog post on the Wikinomics blog suggests something even more sinister, which he dubs the paradox of wikinomics- that potentially millions of jobs could be on the chopping block, if organizations replace people power with “more effective, collaborative technologies” (para. 4), if KM2.0 applications are widely adopted.

Another valid argument that supports the need for caution is the idea that web 2.0 applications may in fact be vulnerable to security hacks and bugs. A PC World article by McMillan (2007) suggests that “if you allow a site to access your drive, you’re relying on that site to be secure” (p. 19), which further raises valid concerns. My point here, is that organisations seeking to “change the focus” of KM to a web 2.0 focus must proceed with caution, and put in place guidelines with regards to how these applications are going to be used in the KM arena.

Levy concludes by advocating for organisations to adopt the use of wikis and blogs, post-haste. However, this reader’s concerns, that there still hasn’t been enough evidence for the uptake of these applications in the major companies of the world, for a knowledge management purpose (Rebiere & Tuggle, 2010) is one criticism of this conclusion. Also, Levy makes the assumption that younger generation will be the drivers of KM2.0, who will be ‘expecting to find them and use them in organisations’ (p. 132). According to recent research by Jones (2010), the use of social media by students of this younger generation do not necessarily expect to see or use these applications in the university environment. It is however, unclear whether these findings can be extrapolated for the work environment, or whether this will in fact change in the coming years, as only time will tell.

In conclusion, the more this reader reads, the more baffling the situation becomes. Others suggest that the nature of web 2.0 applications themselves, lend themselves to greater knowledge sharing without the inhibitions of more traditional knowledge-sharing modes (Martin-Niemi & Greatbanks, 2010) There is already much support in the literature for KM2.0, but this reader feels, that there is a need for more research and more case studies, on the successful implementation of KM2.0. Levy’s overall conclusion is optimistic- that “something is changing” (p. 133) and that as long as organisations take the plunge, KM2.0 will flourish. Time will tell if this is indeed the case.

Anecdotal Evidence

• I went to the first ALIA Library Technician web2.0 unConference in 2009. I ran a session on web 2.0 with a colleague, which turned out to be a discussion on what is web 2.0- how it can be defined and examples of web 2.0. Before we went to the unConference, we did our own brainstorm of what we thought web 2.0 was, and this is a picture of the result of that session:

Click here to go back to blog post.

Other links

• The discussion about perpetual digital pasts made me think of a Hungry Beast story about the policies that web companies, such as Facebook, Yahoo and MySpace, have with regards to what happens to people's pages, when they die. This is related to the very new idea of digital (or virtual) assets, the virtual afterlife and digital legacy. Check it out:
  
  

References

• Anderson, P. (2007). ‘All that glisters is not gold’ Web 2.0 and the librarian. Journal of Librarianship and Information Science, 39, 195-198.
• Graham, J.M., Faix, A., & Hartman, L. (2007). Crashing the Facebook party: one library’s experiences in the students’ domain. Library Review, 58(3), 228-236.
• Halmari, H. (2009). The dichotomous rheteric of Ronald Reagan. Multilingua- Journal of Cross-Cultural and Interlanguage Communication, 12(2), 143-176. doi: 10.1515/mult.1993.12.2.143
• Hancock, D. (2009). Is there a paradox of wikinomics? Retrieved 7th April, 2010 from http://www.wikinomics.com/blog/index.php/2009/01/06/is-there-a-paradox-of-wikinomics/
• Jones, C. (2010). Net generation: encountering elearning @ university. The University of Sydney, CoCo Research Centre. Sydney, NSW. 31 March, 2010.
• Kennan, M. (2010). 4.3.2. Web 2.0 and business. Web 2.0 and social networking [course notes] Retrieved 7th April, 2010 from http://interact.csu.edu.au/portal/site/INF405_201030_W_D/page/dde9f43a-dbac-440f-0002-8db1dfba609f
• Levy, M. (2007). Web 2.0 implications on knowledge management. Journal of Knowledge Management, 13(1), 120-134.
• McMillan, R. (2007). Us web 2.0 safe? PC World, 25(7), 18-20.
  
• Martin-Niemi, F., & Greatbanks, R. (2010). The ba of blogs: Enabling conditions for knowledge coversion in blog communities. VINE: The journal of information and knowledge management systems, 40(1), 7-23
• Ribiere, V.M., & Tuggle, F.D. (2010). Fostering innovation with KM2.0. VINE: The Journal of information and knowledge management systems, 40(1), 90-101.
  
  

It's the end of the world as we know it

Article #2: Heath, F. (2009). Documenting the Global Conversation: Relevancy of Libraries in a Digital World. Journal of Library Administration, 49(5), 519-532.

R.E.M’s (Berry, Buck, Mills & Stipe, 1987) lyric summarises the popular “doomsday” perception, that there is a pending obsolescence of libraries, and that indeed, libraries are “in danger” (New Straits Times Press, 2009) of becoming extinct. Acknowledgement must go to the anonymous journalist who got trapped by the rhetoric, about how libraries ‘must’ and ‘have to’ do ‘something’ to flout this inevitable end to libraries. Heath, in fact argues against this pending obsolescence, and takes a milder, less hysterical view on how libraries, academic and research libraries, in particular, can meet the real world challenges of the ‘Digital world”. This reader agrees with Heath’s viewpoint, that libraries should in fact be “embracing the technological tools of information discovery and stay focused on facilitating critical inquiry” (Heath, 2009, p. 519).

This review will attempt to provide commentary and critique on Heath’s key points.

Heath adopts a “devil’s advocate” standpoint, in which he attempts to use the popular propensity of humankind to adopt a dichotomous, black and white, or polar opposite view of the world. This view, according to Halmari (2009) is one upon which political rhetoric is often based. Thus it has an enormous emotive power, which lends itself to this “doomsday” mentality. By adopting the negative consequence of the dichotomous view, that the web will cause libraries to become obsolete, Heath tries to demonstrate, through a ‘catalog of… directions’ that the University of Texas library is taking, the ludicrousness of such a view. Heath succeeds in making his point, however it feels somewhat laboured and circuitous. This reader feels that it is not explicitly made clear, how strong Heath’s standpoint is, until his concluding words. It is then that it becomes obvious that he is in fact rejecting the dichotomous view and advocating a more complex view, in which the future possibilities are endless, and that we (librarians), can choose to make an effort to ‘make things better than they might have been’ (Heath, 2009)

Heath provides a clear summary of threats posed by web and digital technologies to the library’s sister professions, which aides in ‘documenting the global conversations’ surrounding these professions. However, this reader felt that the time spent exploring these issues took the spotlight away from the critical issue at the crux of this article, which was to demonstrate the possible solutions for libraries to successfully navigate the digital world.

These solutions were described by using the University of Texas library as a case study. There are however, some further questions that are raised.
For example: Heath raises the point that “very few users would find asking a librarian to be a preferred method of locating information” (Perceptions 2005 in Heath, 2009). He goes on to cite the anecdotal evidence that “too frequently, students come to our reference desks because our navigation systems have failed them” (p. 527) This in fact could be an assumption that Heath is making, that “the culprit in every case is the web” (p. 534). The reader understands that Heath is playing the devil’s advocate, and that he is arguing against the fact that the culprit is the web, for the most part, but could the nature of how people access information be masking the real problem, in the instance of the reference desk example he uses? Could it be, that since information is now digital, and the web is now the main mode for accessing information, it appears that the queries, cited by Heath, are due to these systems failing them, but in fact are actually due to the age-old problem of students struggling to construct effective searches? A review of the literature by Gunter, Rowlands and Nicholas (2009) showed that this indeed could be the case. They suggest that it is easy to attribute students’ tendency to construct searches using natural language to search engines which promote this, such as Ask.com. However, the literature shows that this searching behaviour actually predated the internet (Gunter, Rowlands and Nicholas, 2009). It is not clear from the evidence cited in Heath (2009) that this was not the case. Personal experience of information-seeking behaviour by first, second and third year undergraduates, corroborated that students are still very interested in seeking assistance from a librarian at a reference desk. Regardless of this, the strategies that the University of Texas library have put in place to mitigate the effects of their perceived problem contributes to the idea that there are a variety of traditional and non-traditional modes, through which patrons can access the library for assistance. For example, Mack, Behler, Roberts & Rimland (2007) found that Facebook became a surprising avenue through which students asked the most references queries, compared to other avenues (eg email, in-person) in a semester-long survey of reference queries. By increasing the presence of the library in places where students reside, the library can reach more students.(Markgren, 2008).

Further critiques of Heath’s article include the lack of explanation or contextualisation of some of the examples cited, with regards to how libraries can survive in the digital world. For example: the movement of the library’s focus away from the physical collection- to store material offsite, in order to make room for interactive learning spaces. Here Heath is referring to the trend towards library interactive lounge spaces, or learning commons, which are a response to the shift towards learning as a social process and “engagement expressed through interactive team work” (Oblinger & Oblinger, 2005 in Somerville & Collins, 2008), but it is up to the reader to infer this is the reason why material is being stored offsite. Heath’s complete lack of discussion of this significant trend, and how it relates to the digital world, is an important oversight.

To conclude, Heath provides an extensive overview of the current situation in which the library and it’s sister professions find themselves in, with regards to the digital world. By citing some useful, positive steps that one University library has taken, has shown that it is not all doom and gloom for libraries in the digital world.

Other links

• The discussion about natural language searching, got me thinking about the idea of the semantic web. Check out Wolfram Alpha, which is a "computational knowledge engine", which demonstrates the direction in which web 3.0 (the semantic web) is going.
• Check out this blog post on librarians and web 3.0, by Allan Cho, who is a librarian at the University of British Columbia's Irving K. Barber Learning Centre.

References

• Berry, B., Buck, P., Mills, M., & Stipe, M. (1987). It’s the end of the world as we know it (and I feel fine). [R.E.M.] On Document [CD]. United States: I.R.S Records.
  
• Gunter, B., Rowlands, I., & Nicholas, D. (2009). The google generation : are ICT innovations changing information-seeking behaviour? Oxford: Chandos Publishing.
• Halmari, H. (2009). The dichotomous rheteric of Ronald Reagan. Multilingua- Journal of Cross-Cultural and Interlanguage Communication, 12(2), 143-176. doi: 10.1515/mult.1993.12.2.143
• Heath, F. (2009). Documenting the Global Conversation: Relevancy of Libraries in a Digital World. Journal of Library Administration, 49(5), 519-532.
• New Straits Times Press (2008). Libraries at risk of being obsolete. New Straits Times Press, p. 22.
• Mack, D., Behler, A., Roberts, B., & Rimland, E. (2007). Reaching students with Facebook: data and best practices. Electronic Journal of Academic and Special Librarianship, 8(2), http://southernlibrarianship.icaap.org/content/v08n02/mack_d01.html
• Markgren, S. (2008). Reaching out to GenY: Adapting library roles and policies to meet the information needs of the next generation. In J.R. Kennedy, L. Vardaman, & G.B McCabe (Eds.) Our new public, a changing clientele: bewildering issues or new challenges for managing libraries (pp. 46-54). Westport, CT: Libraries Unlimited.
• Somerville, M. , & Collins, L. (2008). Collaborative design: a learner-centered library planning approach. The Electronic Library, 26(6), 803-820.
  

A cautionary tale

Article #1: Anderson, P. (2007). ‘All that glisters is not gold’ Web 2.0 and the librarian. Journal of Librarianship and Information Science, 39, 195-198.

Anderson’s article, entitled ‘All that glisters in not gold' Web 2.0 and the librarian, provides a brief history of web 2.0, in addition to a proposed framework in order to provide librarians a model with which to evaluate, critique and comment on web 2.0 applications. He cautions librarians that web 2.0 applications may not be what they appear to be. This reader generally agrees with Anderson’s viewpoint- that caution should be exercised before implementing web 2.0 applications. This review will consider the key points raised, and critique the analogy upon which the article stands, and propose a possible alternative.

Anderson provides a brief overview of the history of web 2.0, citing the company that is universally supported by the literature (Bradley, 2007; Byrne, 2008; Notess, 2006), as the company who coined the term web 2.0.

Anderson makes an important point by identifying the need to define web 2.0 and the related library 2.0 term, in the research literature. Bradley (2007) corroborates Anderson’s idea that web 2.0 is often simplified, to refer to a list of technologies that are often associated with web 2.0. According to Peek, (2005), technologies such as wikis, blogs, wikis and podcasting are merely starting points to web 2.0. Anderson (2007b), in another paper goes on to describe other services that have become synonymous with web 2.0, which demonstrates this perpetuating view. But for every definition of web 2.0 that simplifies it into a list, there are other ways in which it can be defined. Barnett (2009) cites a definition from Webopedia, as being the “second generation” of the World Wide Web. Others decry it as a meaningless buzzword (Peek, 2005), and still more corroborate with Anderson (2007a), that web 2.0 is a complex notion, that cannot be simply defined- rather, that there are a series of principles, elements, ideas or characteristics upon which web 2.0 defined, and thus evaluated by.

By using a well known Shakespearean proverb, Anderson cautions librarians against the perils of getting drawn into the seemingly exciting, new shininess that web 2.0 holds for libraries and library services, and that indeed, the value of web 2.0 may not in fact be that valuable. This reader tends to agree that web 2.0 applications should not be used, just for the sake of being new, or because the literature tells us to (Jones, 2010). However, the use of this proverb is not clearly defined, nor clearly articulated. Anderson is not making the point that web 2.0 may not be as valuable as it seems, or if he is, it is not a strong standpoint. In fact a more appropriate proverb for Anderson’s article may be for librarians to instead “look before they leap”. Anderson concludes that there is a need for more rigorous, peer-reviewed research to be done in the area, as well as the need for librarians to critique and evaluate web 2.0 library practices, using a framework which he proposes. In reality, it appears that he is advocating the need for librarians to use the framework as a starting point to discuss web 2.0, hence to “look” before they “leap” into the use of web 2.0.

Anderson’s (2007a) framework consists of three parts. The first, represents the applications themselves. He discusses the newer set of applications, as well as those that enable ‘mash-ups’ or those which allow users to mix, adapt, and re-create using existing material. The second part of the framework relates to the principles or characteristics of web 2.0 applications, based on those that O’Reilly originally identified when the term web 2.0 was first introduced. The third aspect relates to the programming languages and standards that enable the creation of web 2.0 applications. Anderson’s final point is that librarians can now find themselves in a powerful position to influence “how new types of technology develop and are used within libraries” (2007a, p. 197). Underpinning Anderson’s conclusion is the assumption that librarians have the knowledge, expertise and skills that are required to influence the development of web 2.0 technologies. While I agree that librarians will be able to influence how web 2.0 applications are used in libraries, both anecdotally and from the plethora of research literature written by librarians who are themselves shaping the direction of how web 2.0 applications are used in their own libraries, I feel that librarians will not have as much influence, if any, in the development of web 2.0 applications. This is because, while web 2.0 applications are extremely user-friendly, the programming knowledge required to create a stable, use-able “back end” would require the expertise of computer programmers, which librarians generally, do not have.

Further critiques of Anderson’s article relate to the lack of explanation of certain key terms that are referred to, particularly in the ‘six ideas that power web 2.0’ section. Concepts such as the long tail, network effects and open standards are not discussed. Anderson, therefore either makes the assumption that readers are already familiar with these terms, or leaves them to find out their meanings in this context, themselves.

To conclude, Anderson suggests a framework from which web 2.0 initiatives can be critically evaluated, and identifies gaps in the literature which provide a good springboard from which other research can be conducted, however he falls short of executing the cautionary tale in which he tries to use the “all that glisters is not gold” analogy regarding the perceived value web 2.0.

Other Links

• See an interview with Tim Burner's Lee, talking to Tim O'Reilly at the Web 2.0 Summit 09
• Read Tim O'Reilly & John Battelle's "Web Squared: Web 2.0 Five Years On" article.
• Common Craft has a bunch of really useful videos that explain web 2.0 terms and concepts in a very simple, easy to understand way. Check out this video on Social Networking:

Anecdotal Evidence

• Facebook proposal- I was responsible for writing the proposal for a Facebook page for the organisation in which I work, which was successfully implemented. My experience with this demonstrates how librarians can influence the way in which web 2.0 applications can be used in libraries. To check out the University of Sydney library's Facebook page, click here. To continue reading my blog post, click here.
  

References

• Anderson, P. (2007b). What is web 2.0 ? Ideas, technologies and implication for education. JISC. Retrieved from http://www.jisc.ac.uk/media/documents/techwatch/tsw0701b.pdf

• Barnett, D. (2009). Giants of web 2.0: How to turn YouTube, Google, Facebook and the others into your own personal marketing slaves. Sydney: Goko Publishing.

• Bradley, P. (2007). How to use Web 2.0 in your library. London: Facet.

• Byrne, A. (2008). Web 2.0 strategy in libraries and information services. The Australian Library Journal, 57(4), 365-312.

• Jones, C. (2010). Net generation: encountering elearning @ university. The University of Sydney, CoCo Research Centre. Sydney, NSW. 31 March, 2010.

• Notess, G. R. (2006). The Terrible Twos: Web 2.0, Library 2.0, and More. Online, 30(3), 40.

• Peek, R. (2005). Web Publishing 2.0. Information Today, 22(10), 17.