Assignment 3 : evaluative report

Part A

Studying INF 206 has provided an understanding of social networking technologies and the concepts, theory and practice of Library 2.0 and participatory library services.  Evidence of this learning can be shown by the posts made previously on this blog such as: Learner Licence Librarian: Delicious, Learner Licence Librarian: Second Life and Learner Licence Librarian: Social networking, libraries and privacy.

These posts provide discussion of two examples of social networking technologies and critically examine the features and functionality of each.  In particular consideration is given to how they could meet the information needs of users. Both posts describe the basic use of the tools and briefly discuss how the tools can be used to meet users’ information needs.  For example Delicious is suggested as a good tool for a library to use to create a subject list for users or for staff to pool their favourite professional development bookmarks for others to utilise.  Indeed Darby describes Delicious as one of the simplest ways of providing lists of resources for users (2009, p. 100).  Allowing staff to share their favourite work related websites in this way helps them to bond and become more cohesive as team (Cunningham, 2010, p. 6).  In discussing Second Life, it is proposed as a suitable forum to conduct virtual reference or information literacy classes in for users unable to attend the physical library.  Indeed the suitability of Second Life for use in this way is backed up by Dede (2009, p. 66), who says that immersion in a digital environment can enhance education by allowing multiple perspectives, situated learning and transfer.  

Sodt & Summey (2009, p. 98-100) in discussing Library 2.0 and participatory library services state that the library environment should not only fulfil information needs and enable learning but that it should also facilitate content creation and community building.  They go on to further say Library 2.0 allows a service to be personalised and tailored by users both in the physical library environment and remotely from it.  From the posts on Delicious and Second Life it is clear they meet these requirements.   

Understanding of the social, cultural, educational, ethical and technical management issues that exist in a socially networked world, and how information policy is developed and implemented to support such issues, is also demonstrated by the Delicious and Second Life posts along with the post,. For example the Delicious post discusses the impact of user tagging and the barriers it can present to location of information such as through the varying racial and cultural meanings and usages of worlds.  These language differences are considered one of the weaknesses and problems of user tagging according to Rolla (2009, p.175).  Technology is also an important consideration for Libraries implementing participatory services.  Tools such as Second Life require specific computing specifications, and as the Second Life post points out there are many considerations which a Library must make before launching services in such an environment (Frank, 2008).  

Perhaps one of the most important considerations of any library wishing to be 2.0 is the concept of privacy and online safety.  The post Social networking, libraries and privacy provides a discussion of some of the considerations surrounding these, particularly privacy which a library should address when utilising social networking tools to provide services.  As the post advises, libraries need to implement suitable policies and communicate it to staff and users alike to ensure that the experience of participating and collaborating remains a positive one for all.  If users do not feel that their privacy is protected or that they are not safe when using library services in a social networking environment then they will be discouraged from participating. Indeed the report Sharing, privacy and trust in our networked world which found that people place a high level of  importance on the ability to protect their identity and personal information online (De Rosa, C., Cantrell, J., Havens, A., Hawk, J. & Jenkins, L., 2007, p.  3-16).  Services offered via social networking provide a way to bring users, regardless of physicality and real life ties together to communicate and collaborate but this communication and collaboration is based on a fragile trust (Anklam, 2009, p.  419; 423) and if the library cannot ensure users are provided with a safe, trustworthy environment which respects user privacy then users will be loath to use it, and in turn will also damage users’ perception of physical library as a trustworthy source of information.

Part B

Undertaking INF 206 this semester has been an interesting experience.  Prior to beginning the subject I was already a keen user of a variety of web 2.0 and social networking tools on a purely social basis.  There also existed some tools which I viewed as ‘a waste of time’.  Further, I also saw little applicability of many of the tools in terms of use by the information profession to meet the information needs of users.

However, completion of INF 206 has meant that I have re-evaluated my opinions.  I have expanded the use of web 2.0 tools in my personal life and where I once considered social networking and web 2.0 as holding little to aid the information profession; I can now see applicability and sense in the profession incorporating these tools and the concepts of web 2.0 into everyday practise where relevant.  According to the report Sharing, privacy and trust in our networked world (De Rosa, et.al., 2007, p. 1.1) internet access is “standard equipment” for the majority of users, surveyed for the report, and use of search engines, email and blogs all experienced exponential growth in the period survey from 2005 to 2007.  The exception however to this trend was use of library websites which unfortunately showed a decrease in usage.  What this means, is that libraries exist in a world which has embraced an online existence and it is past time that libraries moved to meet their users in the online world where such users already spend vast amounts of time and are comfortable (Cunningham, 2010, p. 5).  No longer can the information profession expect users to come to us, our future is dependent upon us taking what we can offer to the users and presenting it in a way, and in forums, with which users have become accustomed.  Burrus (2010, p. 53) in his article discussing social networking and Business 2.0 states that by “repurposing” social networking technology as business tools, companies can increase collaboration, problem solving and improve communication, all of which is vital to “adopting continuous value innovation focused on the customer”.  Library 2.0 and business 2.0 reply upon the same concepts and technology, hence Burrus’ statement can equally be applied to libraries.  Users of social networking tools are now used to participating and collaborating with other social networkers, hence it makes sense for the information profession to adopt such practises so it too may engage with existing and potential users.

Whilst INF 206 may not have introduced me to any new tools, it has made me think about the tools I am familiar with in a different light.  The subject has also allowed me to re-evaluate how I thought of some of the tools, recasting them as worthwhile technology in the right situation.  In terms of being an information professional, INF 206 has forced me to re-think my understanding of how social networking tools can be utilised to achieve a participatory library service and recognise that they can be an asset to a library if implemented and used correctly.  It has highlighted the need for the tools and for collaboration and participation whilst also empathising that it is still important to take this path in a considered and planned way.  It has also demonstrated the need for policies and guidelines to be created and adhered for the good of the library and users alike whilst emphasising that they must also constantly evolve and change just like the technologies they are governing the use of.  They should also be created in collaboration with users so as to reinforce the sense of relationship between the library and its users.

 I can now better join in the conversations of my peers as to the advantages and disadvantages of the various web 2.0 technologies and the way in which they can be utilised to meet our users’ needs and engage in a collaborative relationship with them.  There exists still in the profession many who consider that social networking technologies and concepts of Library 2.0 have no place in the information world.  INF 206 has left me in a better position to argue the case for the uptake of these tools and in creating a library service which is both collaborative and participatory in nature.

References

Anklam, P. (2009). Ten years of net work. The Learning Organisation, 16(6), 415-
426. Doi: 10.1108/09696470910993909

Burrus, D. (2010). Social networks in the workplace: the risk and opportunity of
Business 2.0. Strategy & Leadership, 38(4), 50-53.
Doi: 10.1108/10878571011059674

Cunningham, J. (2010). New workers, new workplace? Getting the balance right. Strategic Direction, 26(1), 5-6. Doi: 10.1108/02580541011009725

Darby, A., & Gilmour, R. (2009). Adding Delicious data to your library website [Electronic resource]. Information Technology and Libraries, 28(2), 100-103. Retrieved on Sept. 11, 2010 from http://www.ebsco.com

Frank, I. (2008). Librarians in virtual worlds : why get a second life? [Electronic resource]. First Monday, 13(8).  Retrieved on Sept. 10, 2010 from http://firstmonday.org/htbin/cgiwrap/bin/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/2222/2010

Dede, C. (2009). Immersive interfaces for engagement and learning [Electronic resource]. Science, 323, 66-69. DOI: 10.1126/science.1167311

Rolla, P. J. (2009) User tags versus subject headings: can user-supplied data improve subject access to library collections? [Electronic resource].  Library Resources & Technical Services, 53(3), 174-184. Retrieved on Sept. 1, 2010 from: http://www.ebsco.com

De Rosa, C., Cantrell, J., Havens, A., Hawk, J., & Jenkins, L. (2007). Sharing privacy and trust in our networked world: A report to the OCLC membership. Dublin, Ohio: OCLC.  Retrieved July 14, 2010 from http://www.oclc.org/reports/pdfs/sharing.pdf

Sodt, J. M., & Summey, T. P. (2009). Beyond the library’s walls: using library 2.0 tools to reach out to all users. Journal of Library Administration, 49, 97-109. Doi: 10.1080/01930820802312854

I wrote this!...

I wrote this blog post for the National Library and thought I brag a little here lol

Acquisitions trip to a Canberra newsagency

BTW the title wasn't mine, the first sentence of the post is meant to be the title and is much more interesting that the one it was given

You want answers?! I want the truth! You can’t handle the truth!

Firstly apologies for quoting the courtroom exchange between Tom Cruise’s and Jack Nicholson’s characters from A Few Good Men but it seemed a good title for this post.

Finding authentic information in a socially networked world can be quite a challenge.  It’s easy to plug a few words to your browsing of choice and see what comes up, but how do you know the results you are given are the right results?  If you searched for a topic now on Google, most likely at the top, or near to it, of your results list would be a Wikipedia hit according to Garfinkel in his article ‘Wikipedia and the meaning of truth’ (2008, 111(6) Technology Review, 84-86).  Wikipedia however relies upon articles submitted by anyone, allows anyone to edit it’s articles and uses as it’s only measure of truth that the fact or opinion in the article occurrs in another article in English which is available freely online.  This has caused concern for many in regards to just how authoritative Wikipedia actually is.  Surprisingly though, studies have found that the sheer number of people willing to act as volunteer editors tends to mean articles are mostly correct with errors, either innocent or malicious, usually quickly corrected.

However there are many other pages on the internet purporting to be expert in one subject or another and it means that users must beware when accessing them lest they find themselves relying on information which is wrong.  For information professionals this is even more important as usually we are acting as information mediators.  Users who seek our help in finding information rely on what we give them to be 100% accurate.  If we provide anything less, then not only have we let that user down in not supplying their need but we also damaged or destroyed the users trust in the library as the place to seek quality information.

Therefore information professionals need to be savvy when utilising online resources.  We need to ensure the information we find is from trustworthy and reputable sources.  Sources and information alike should also be vetted and verified before we consider providing it to a user.  This is also a lesson we should be teaching the users of our library, they need to be made aware of the need to critically evaluate what they find online, be it information or the profiles of others on social networking sites.  We need to educate users to validate and verify information and the sources from which it comes and to recognise the signs on websites or user profiles which suggest the source may be trustworthy or not.

Who do you think you are? Thoughts re online identity

With the rise in the popularity of social networking sites (SNS), the issue of online identity is one which bears some considered thought.  How an individual or organisation portrays themselves online has implications.  Should a profile be a brutally honest portrayal of you or should some things be kept personal?

For an organisation the answer to this question is fairly simple, its online profile should provide an honest and accurate picture.  Goodwill, or trust, in the business world is essential if the business wants to grow and be successful.  Word of mouth is a powerful force for any organisation and if users discover an organisation’s online profile doesn’t match the reality then that news will spread like wildfire across the vastness of the online world and potential users may be turned off of dealing with the entity.  

In addition organisations need to consider who is viewing their online profile.  Are there levels of information which need to quarantined or should it all be freely available to whoever wishes to view it.  Organisation should certainly consider if they need to institute levels of access.  For example setting security levels so that staff only information is truly only available to staff.  As for other information which an organisation may want to only be accessed by some users then that too needs the appropriate security applied so that only the relevant users can access the information.

The situation is similar in some ways for individuals.  People with obviously fake profiles can be viewed critically by others who wonder what they have to hide.  Conversely, individuals may wish to not overly identify themselves due to the permanency and mine-ability of online information.  On most SNS users can select a variety of privacy controls to restrict who sees what on their profile.  However these controls do not stop the owner of the SNS from storing this information to use when and how they want.  Take Facebook for example, it recently trumpeted 500 million users, that’s a lot of information about a lot of people that can be used how Facebook wants if they think they will get away with it.

Of course it could be argued that with that many people on Facebook that surely there is some safety in the sheer volume of information collected.  Not only does your data get lost in the multitude but the multitude help to play guardian against mis-use by Facebook.   In addition there are many profiles, mine included, which aren’t used by just one person.  This means any data collected ultimately is not going to be a fully accurate portrayal of the person it is meant to represent which means the data always has a question of quality attached to it. 

At the end of the day I think it comes down to an individual or organisation taking responsibility.  Individuals and organisation alike need to be aware the potential consequences of any information they publish, not only in terms of how they appear to others but also as to how that information could be used by third parties.  Life is full of choices and how much we participate in the online world is up to us, so we should make the effort to be fully informed and then make considered decisions about what we will or won’t post online.

Social networking, libraries and privacy

Whilst it is important that libraries provide access to and utilise social networking tools, this access and use also brings with it important considerations regarding privacy, disclosure of information and online safety.  Libraries need to devise and implement policies which set out how it will deal with any information it collects from or about it users and staff need to be conversant with policies.  In addition, where a library provides the means for users to access the internet or utilises social networking tools to contact the library, then careful consideration must also be given as to how this is done.

Something as simple as a library blog throws up a whole series of issues which have to be considered.  If the blog allows comments then there exists the possibility of inappropriate or offensive posts.  The library must formulate a policy on how best to deal with this situation and this should be clearly communicated with users also.  Thought also has to be given as to whether users will be able to comment anonymously to protect their privacy.

In relation to safety, does the library install upon the public access computers software to filter content which potentially will filter out websites that are harmless?  Should a library filter content, other than that which is illegal, at all?  Is it the library’s duty to protect children from websites containing pornography even if it means denying adults access to the content?  Does library staff conduct physical monitoring of computer use?  Should the library take a pro-active stance and provide safe surfing classes and teach users about the need to protect their information online or leave it up to users to work out for themselves?

However the library decides to deal with the many issues thrown up by access to the internet and use of social networking sites, it should document carefully all policies and provide reasons why such policies have been adopted where applicable.  Ideally policies should also be created using the input of the users who will be effected by such policies.  The policies should then not only be freely available for all to access but should be a regular part of the conversation with users and staff alike.  Such policies should also never remain static.  Just as the internet and social networking constantly change and evolve, so to should any library policies concerning them.

Digital citizens behaviour & information policy

The video Did you know 4.0 outlines many shifts or trends which have an impact on how individuals behave as digital citizens.  Among trends/shifts identified in the video as at September 2009 are the following:

• Print newspapers have experienced a decline in readership whilst online it has increased.

• Revenue from online ads has increased, whilst print ad revenue has decreased.

• More video gets uploaded to Youtube in two months than gets shown over several years over multiple tv channels.

• Traditional media outlets such as tv gets a fraction of unique visits that social networking sites such as MySpace/Youtube/Facebook get per month – 10 million v 250 million – yet the social networking sites have only existed for the last 6 years.

• 95% of music downloads in a year were done for free.

• Wikipedia, which started in 2001, has more than 13 million articles in 200+ languages.

In terms of the need for, and development of, information policy in organisations, these trends/shifts demonstrate that digital citizens are behaving differently to what has previously been the norm.  Where once they sourced their information from traditional, non-online places, they are now increasingly abandoning those sources and seeking the same information online instead.

For organisations this means developing/updating information policies to allow individuals to access the information they want in the way they want to do it.  Organisations cannot afford to continue on as they have done, they must adapt to the new way of doing things if they wish to keep their traditional users and to gain new ones. Organisations must adopt use of social networking, and other online tools, to establish a relationship with users in a way users are now comfortable with and prefer to more traditional methods.

Indeed it won’t be long before this online behaviour is considered the norm thus organisation need to jump on the bandwagon sooner rather than later or else risk losing their relevance and credibility with little hope of regaining it in a market providing a multitude of other sources.