Review of Using blogs and wikis to communicate with library clients

Watson and Harper (2006) in Using blogs and wikis to communicate with library clients, discuss how blogs and wikis can play a role in creating virtual communities, and ponder how they can be used within the “framework of Web 2.0 and Library 2.0”.

Watson et al., (2006) describe blogs as online journals only specified contributors can add too, although comments by anyone can be allowed. Alternatively, wikis are described as web pages able to be edited by all. The communication and collaboration enabled by blogs and wikis are described by Watson et al., (2006) as the “driving force behind concepts such as Web 2.0 and Library 2.0”.

Establishing blogs and wikis as a library communication tool is simply done. However, to ensure it is a successful tool and one that integrates with other library tools and services, it is necessary to undertake much planning prior to their creation (Watson et al., 2006) and provide the following tips for successfully creating communication tools:
1. Manage the tool.
2. Control technolust.
3. Be honest and sincere.
4. Update regularly.
5. Enable comments and respond where appropriate.
6. Use RSS feeds or other promotional methods.

Expanding these tips, Watson et al., (2006) says technology must accord with the library’s goals and mission. The technology also should be really needed and not just implemented because it will project the right image. Indeed Stephens (2008, p. 314) says “technolust is an irrational love for new technology combined with unrealistic expectations for the solutions it brings”. Libraries should be careful to avoid becoming the victims of technolust. Technolust can result in the library loosing users through the incorrect or unnecessary implementing of communication tools or as stated by Murley (2008, p. 201), adding a new source or service can result in the need to delete something else.

Honest and sincere communication from libraries is also important. Users who sense library communications lack these attributes will be discouraged from further interactions with the library (Watson et al., 2006). Libraries need to be aware that users can form an opinion of the library as a whole based entirely upon the information found on the library’s blog or wiki.

Regularly updating the library blog or wiki is a must. Out-of-date content, or irregularly posting, implies to users that the library does not value the blog or wiki. Watson et al., (2006) states that content which is “fresh” creates appeal.

Allowing contributions is another important feature of blogs and wikis as it creates a sense of personalisation for users (Benson & Favini, 2006, p. 18). This personalisation is created because users feel “a sense of ownership” of the blog or wiki because it holds their work (Curran, Murray & Christian, 2007, pp.291-292). Also libraries should ensure they respond to user comments where appropriate as this will further enhance this sense of personalisation.

RSS feeds allow users to find out what is happening in the library without having to visit the library’s website (Anderson, 2007, p. 10). Bradley (as cited by Secker & Price, 2007, p. 42) states that “RSS is fundamental to Web 2.0 technologies…[as it] underpins most social software”. Libraries utilising RSS feeds as a method to promote the library’s blog or wiki are pushing their content to users rather than passively waiting, and hoping, for users to seek out the information for themselves. Libraries need to be pro-active in promoting their blogs or wikis to ensure they are successful.

This article is brief and contains little substantial discussion regarding blogs and wikis. However the strength of the article lies in the tips it provided for libraries wishing to use Web 2.0 and Library 2.0 technologies successfully to communicate with users. The tips are succinct and clear in meaning and should be considered invaluable by libraries.

References

Anderson, P. (2007). What is Web 2.0? Ideas, technologies and
implications for education. Retrieved May 22, 2008, from Joint Information Systems Committee website: http://www.jisc.ac.uk/media/document/techwatch/tsw0701b.pdf

Benson, A., & Favini, R. (2006). Evolving web, evolving librarian
[Electronic resource]. Library Hi Tech News, 7, 18-21.

Curran, K., Murray, M., & Christian, M. (2007). Taking the information to
the public through Library 2.0 [Electronic resource]. Library Hi Tech, 25(2), 288-297.

Murley, D. (2008). What is all the fuss about Library 2.0? [Electronic
resource]. Law Library Journal, 100(1), 197-204.

Secker, J., & Price, G. (2007). Libraries, social software and distance
learners: Blog it, tag it, share it! [Electronic resource]. New Review of Information Networking, 13(1), 39-52.

Stephens, M. (2008). Taming technolust: Ten steps for planning in a 2.0
world [Electronic resource]. Reference & User Services Quarterly, 47(4), 314-317.

Watson, K., & Harper, C. (2006). Using blogs and wikis to communicate
with library clients [Electronic resource]. InCite, 28 (December). Retrieved from ALIA website: http://www.alia.org.au/publishing/incite/2006/12/print.html?ID=138

Review of Emerging technologies changing our service delivery models

Kajewski in Emerging technologies changing our service delivery models (2007), describes various free, or inexpensive, technologies which can be simply implemented by libraries to provide access to, and market, library services. Kajewski (2007, p. 428) states libraries need to understand and adopt such technology to create a connection with its community so as to meet existing and future user needs. Similarly, Miller (2005) advocated the adoption of these technologies to serve users and ensure library relevancy.

Primarily, Kajewski provides discussion of the main technologies useful to libraries. A brief explanation is provided of the software and how libraries can use it, along with an example of actual library use. Technologies Kajewski discusses are: blogs, wikis, podcasts, vodcasts, web conferencing and instant messaging (IM).

Kajewski (2007, p. 421) describes blogs as an online diary, where "brief entries are displayed in reverse chronological order". Blogging is described as simple to do with the aid of software such as Blogger, which is an automated publishing system. Kajewski states blogs can be used by libraries in four ways:
- Blogs as an information service - Promote the library by posting library announcements.
- Blogs as a library service - Promote services and resources to attract users.
- Blogs as a feedback tool. Encourage users to post feedback and suggestions as a way to personalise services (Bension and Favini, 2006, p. 18).
- Blogs as a professional awareness tool - Disseminate staff items or knowledge management (Murley, 2008, p. 202).

Wikis also work well for sharing information with users, as it allow users and staff to add, delete or alter a web page (Kajewski, 2007 p. 423). Particularly, wikis are highly suited for knowledge management or other types of information sharing (Murley, 2008, p. 202).

Whilst blogs and wikis can aid libraries in creating a more personalised experience for users (Benson & Favini, 2006, p. 18), Kajewski fails to note that collaborative tools require some moderation by staff to identify inappropriate postings (Murley, 2008, p. 202). Indeed Stvilia (as cited by Anderson, 2007, p. 8) states "systems that allow such a level of openness…[have] suffered from problems of malicious editing and vandalism".

RSS is generally considered to mean Really Simple Syndication and is used for notification of updates to blogs or websites. RSS has application for libraries as it allows users to be kept up-to-date which what is new at the library without the need to visit the library's website (Kajewski, 2007, p. 424).

Podcasts are audio programs located on the internet and gives users the flexibility to listen to items of interest when they want (Kajewski, 2007, p. 424), and can be done easily by libraries (Lliff & Rousseau, 2007, p. 84). Another advantage of podcasting is personalisation, as users hear a human voice presenting the information. Podcasting can be used many ways, such as to provide database training, library tours, or presentations (Kajewski, 2007, p. 425). Vodcasts are similar to podcasts except they are visual instead of audio. Kajewski suggests vodcasts be used to illustrate what the library has done so as to lure new users (2007, p. 426).

Libraries can also use web conferencing, or webinars (web + seminars) for group meetings or live presentations via the internet. Web conferencing provides libraries with a way to reach remote, or indeed mobility challenged, users or staff in real time to communicate on a reciprocal basis (Kajewski, 2007, p. 427).

Finally Kajewski (2007, p. 427) discusses instant messaging (IM) which allows typed communication between people in real time via their computers. IM is sometimes utilised by libraries as a 'reference help' tool due to its instantaneous nature.

Kajewski's article is useful in that it gives libraries an idea of the basic technologies to enhance existing, or to provide new, services. However, a failing of Kajewski's article is that it provides only superficial discussion of each technology. A more useful article would have provided an analysis of the negatives as well as the positives of each technology.

References

Anderson, P. (2007). What is Web 2.0? Ideas, technologies and
implications for education. Retrieved May 22, 2008, from Joint Information Systems Committee website: http://www.jisc.ac.uk/media/document/techwatch/tsw0701b.pdf

Benson, A., & Favini, R. (2006). Evolving web, evolving librarian
[Electronic resource]. Library Hi Tech News, 7, 18-21.

Kajewski, M. A. (2007) Emerging technologies changing our service
delivery models [Electronic resource]. The Electronic Library, 25(4), 420-429.

Lliff, J., & Roussearu, T. (2007). An introduction to podcasting for
librarians. In K. Hanson & H. F. Cervone (Eds.), Using interactive technologies in libraries: A LITA guide (pp. 83-97). New York: Neal-Schuman Publishers.

Miller, P. (2005). Web 2.0: Building the new library. Ariadne, 45.
Retrieved August 25, 2008 from http://www.ariadne.ac.uk/issue45/miller/

Murley, D. (2008). What is all the fuss about Library 2.0? [Electronic
resource]. Law Library Journal, 100(1), 197-204.

Review of Library 2.0: Service for the next-generation library

Library 2.0: Service for the next-generation library by Casey and Savastinuk (2006) discusses how Library 2.0 is a model to rejuvenate libraries and their services by creating a more useful and interactive environment for existing users. The authors say Library 2.0 is about "user centred change" in that it encourages users to help create physical and virtual library services and seeks feedback from these users. This concept of Library 2.0 being user centred is echoed by Chad and Miller (2005, p. 9) who state the concept means libraries can make information available wherever and whenever the user requires it.

Casey et al., see the Library 2.0 model as consisting of the following four components:
- Tapping new users through the long tail.
- Customers as collaborators.
- Technology.
- Constant change and evaluation.
These elements also feature in Biancu's model (as cited by Curran, Murray & Christian, 2007, p. 294).

Casey et al. (2007), state that libraries tend to provide "the same services and the same programs to the same groups", and that many library services will never be used by the majority of the population. They go on to say that libraries cannot physically stock everything that every user wants so they tend to stock only popular items. This is the where the long tail concept arises. The long tail is best explained by example - if a library receives 200 requests and 40 of those requests are for item x, then naturally the library will stock item x as it is popular. However the library has then not fulfilled the requests of 160 users. These users are thus the 'long tail' and ignoring them would be detrimental to a library's viability. "[T]apping new users through the long tail" means using a mixture of physical and online services to cater for all needs and to attract new users (Casey et al., 2006).

The next model component, users as collaborators, according to Casey et al. (2006) relates to users having a participatory role in services offered and how they are used. They also say customer knowledge needs to be harnessed to supplement and enhance library services. This idea of user participation was also expressed by Chad et al. (2005, p. 10) and by Lankes, Silversten and Nicholson (2007, p. 23).

Technology as a model component refers to libraries aiming for technology which can be modified to library and user needs. Casey et al. (2006) say Web 2.0 tools can be an easy and affordable way to ensure library content remains relevant by reaching out and interacting with users (Wallis, 2007, p. 7).

Lastly, the Casey et al. (2006) model consists of change and evaluation. The authors say user feedback should be routinely sought and services regularly evaluated and updated to ensure they are meeting user needs. Being Library 2.0 means evolving to keep pace with changing user needs. Services will also remain fresh by utilising new ideas and re-evaluating old ones.

This article is a good starting point for libraries considering implementing Library 2.0 practices. It provides libraries with the basic things that need to be considered to achieve Library 2.0 success and provides ideas of what libraries can do themselves. Importantly it stresses that Library 2.0 is not just about Web 2.0 technologies, it is the concepts which are important. The article also acknowledges all libraries are different but through user and staff collaboration a way to make the model work for a library can be clear.

References

Casey, M. E., & Savastinuk, L. C. (2006). Library 2.0: Service for the next
generation library. Library Journal, 14. Retrieved August 25, 2008 from http://www.libraryjournal.com/article/CA6365200.html?q=Library+2%2E0

Chad, K., & Miller, P. (2005). Do libraries matter?: The rise of Library 2.0.
Retrieved August 25, 2008 from the Talis website: http://www.talis.com/applications/downloads/white_papers/DoLibrariesMatter.pdf

Curran, K., Murray, M., & Christian, M. (2007). Taking the information to
the public through Library 2.0 [Electronic resource]. Library Hi Tech, 25(2), 288-297.

Lankes, R. D., Silverstein, J., & Nicholson, S. (2007). Participatory
networks: The library as conversation [Electronic resource]. Information Technology and Libraries, 26(4), 17-33.

Wallis, R. (2007). Web 2.0 to Library 2.0 – from debate to reality: A
presentation to the cpd25 conference, 23 April 2007, London [Electronic resource]. New Review of Information Networking, 13(1), 53-64.

Review of User collaboration in websites

“User Collaboration in Websites” by Pearce (2006) discusses two services offered by the National Library of Australia (NLA) and how it is keeping these services relevant through Web 2.0 user collaboration.

Pearce (2006) explains Web 2.0 as a term made popular by O’Reilly (2005) and defines it as “websites that let people collaborate and share information”. This definition is echoed by Anderson (2007, p. 5) and Abram’s (as cited by Murley, 2008, p. 198). However, the writer feels Pearce’s definition would be more accurate if she had used the term “web tools” rather than websites. Indeed Anderson’s (2007, p. 5) definition, says Web 2.0 is a “group of technologies” and Oberhelman (2007), p. 5) says Web 2.0 refers to a group of web tools.

In 2006 the NLA created a new set of strategies to ensure its relevance in response to the perception that people expect “a degree of inclusiveness, interactivity and access” from websites and that NLA services did not provide this. Web 2.0 was seen as providing a model to enhance NLA services and visibility through user collaboration. To meet these goals, the NLA initiated two projects: Flickr Pilot Project and Australia Dancing Takes Part (Pearce, 2006).

The Flickr Pilot Project (FPP) was designed to enhance PictureAustralia using Flickr to increase levels of contemporary images and to engage new audiences. Flickr was chosen as it had many Australian users, it encouraged metadata use and the interface could be mapped to Dublin Core (Pearce, 2006).

Overall the FPP has been a positive for PictureAustralia, with an increase in heritage images, an area which distinguishes PictureAustralia from other services. A survey demonstrated that visibility and usage of PictureAustralia was increased by user tagging, reflecting the experiences of sites such as Flickr, MySpace and Del.ici.ous (Benson & Favini, 2006, p.19). To sustain this use however, Pearce(2006)stated that NLA would need to find ways to further encourage and develop user participation, whilst ensuring library goals regarding content were met.

One issue Pearce raised regarding the FPP was maintaining PictureAustralia’s authoritiveness. Pearce felt although users input may not contribute to locating or understanding an image, such input is useful in regards to its “interestingness”. Indeed, Pearcefelt that services which do not allow tagging or comment were becoming “stale”. (2006)

The Take Part Project (TPP) was created to make Australia Dancing - a “federated directory” of resources held in Australian collections that relate to dance in Australia - “more inclusive” by allowing the creation of user entries utilising wiki software. Pearce (2006) stated user entries could have been achieved by authorised users accessing the update interface of Australia Dancing but the wiki approach was adopted, as the NLA was interested to see if an informal approach would allow a more flexible online space for users interested in the service. Due to lack of promotion Pearce was unable to discuss the project’s outcomes other than to say the wiki software chosen had shown to be suitable for the task.

Regarding the TPP’s future, Pearce (2006) stated there are issues with integrating its data with that already in Australia Dancing. One option she suggested was to migrate Australia Dancing itself to a wiki. However, Pearce (2006) queried whether the wiki should be fully open, and if so, then why not just use Wikipedia, but noted Wikipedia had received much criticism due to its openness leading to sometimes questionable content.

Particularly, Pearce (2006) noted biographers had expressed concern that due to the scholarly nature of biography, the open slather approach of Wikipedia made it unsuitable for the task. For this reason Pearce felt the TPP and Australia Dancing should be developed separately until an appropriate collaborative model could be implemented. She also felt that if Australia Dancing was to be successful it would need to adopt a model based on registered users and peer review.

Pearce’s article provides an interesting look at the NLA’s attempt to incorporate Web 2.0 into its services. Whilst the projects are ongoing and have issues yet to be overcome, the article is valuable in showing that Web 2.0 can be used effectively by libraries to enhance their services.

References

Anderson, P. (2007). What is Web 2.0? Ideas, technologies and
implications for education. Retrieved May 22, 2008, from Joint Information Systems Committee website: http://www.jisc.ac.uk/media/document/techwatch/tsw0701b.pdf

Benson, A., & Favini, R. (2006). Evolving web, evolving librarian
[Electronic resource]. Library Hi Tech News, 7, 18-21.

Murley, D. (2008). What is all the fuss about Library 2.0? [Electronic
resource]. Law Library Journal, 100(1), 197-204.

Oberhelman, D. D. (2007). Coming to terms with Web 2.0 [Electronic
resource]. Reference Reviews, 21(7), 5-6.

O’Reilly, T. (2005). What is Web 2.0: Design patterns and business models
for the next generation of software. Retrieved July 21, 2008 from O’Reilly Media website: http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/a/oreilly/tim/news/2005/09/30/what-is-web-20.html

Pearce, J. (2006). User Collaboration in Websites. Retrieved August 24,
2008 from National Library of Australia website: http://www.nla.gov.au/nla/staffpaper/2006/jpearce1.html