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:
- 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.
No comments:
Post a Comment