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