The article is an overview which based on the findings of the research porject ‘'Investigating Blog and Wiki Technology for the Enhancement of Internal Reference Services Processes’ by K Watson and C. Harper. The project has investigated current and potenti provide the short overview of blogs and wikis, and somw important tips which librarians need be concerned when applying new communication tools.
Firstly, Authors give a brief introduction to blogs and wiki and explain their differences. Blogs likes an online journals or diary which contributed by any topics and content by chronologically. Blogs as a communication tools because readers are allowed to give comments to the blogs. Different from the blogs, wikis consists on the HTML pages and the owner of wikis has a limitation on who is able to edit it. Also, the arrangement of the posts is according to the subject. Those tools are simple to use and inexpensive for librarians to create an online platform which communicating with users.
Blogs and wikis are quick and simple process to create communication tools, but as J.M. Maness (2006) criticized that blogs and wikis lack of editorial governance and the security. Thus, for integrating those technologies in to library services successfully, a lot of planning and works are required before using those technologies. Authors gave six tips to describe how libraries can best manage the blogs and wikis. Those tips are as follows:
Tips 1: Mange your communication tool
It is a hints that the attention when implementing new technology to libraries. Librarians need to keep in mind the organization’s goal and objective. Having a strategic plan and preparing the policy and guideline are essential step before releasing the new technologies to library patrons.
Tips 2: Control ‘technolust’
The libraries need to against the new technologies when it is not suit the organization’s strategic missions and objectives. It is suggest testing the technologies before releasing to public.
Tips 3: Have an agreed upon, honest library voice
The library speaks to library users by using communication tools so that it must be honest and genuine. The articles used the case of Mazda that ‘a fake blogs was released by the car company to appeal to Generation Y was apparently written by a 22-year-old Mazda M6 enthusiast’ (Watson & Harper, 2006). It proved that communication tools must be truthful because the fake information published at communication will misunderstand readers and harm the image of library.
Tips 4: Update often
The contents in blogs and wikis must be kept in current and fresh. Libraries need to update the blosgs and wikis regularly so that information is keeping fresh and present as well.
Tips 5: Enable comments, where appropriate, and respond
Not only update the blogs, but also the library staff response the users’ comments on blogs when appropriate. It is an action to harvest opinions from users’s comments and give feedback so that users may feel libraries listen to their voice.
Tips 6: Use RSS feeds or other promotional avenues
The communication tools will fail if users do not know it. Libraries need to promote the communicate tools in order to inform the new communication channel to users. The RSS feeds can be used to alert the user about updates and new posts of communication tools.
The shortcoming of this article is that those tips a very common that those will be concerned when libraries implementing. There is another factor that affecting successful of using blogs and wikis. For example, do the interfaces of communication tools friendly to the users? Do the current contents or topics catch the users’ eyes and meet their needs? Moreover, monitoring the open-source such as wiki is a challenges for librarians, as stephens, M (2006) said that Public wikis will easy be a battleground for two authors who disagree. If authors give more examples to illustrate those tips and the the focus on barries on new technologies, it will give a clear and comprehensive concept how libraries implementing those new technologies.
To conclude, it is a useful guideline to use a blogs and wikis as a communication tools in library environment. It provides the basic information and differences of blogs and wikis and library attitude in the world of Web 2.0. It also gives the tips which librarians need to be concerned when implementing new technologies in library services.
Reference
Maness, J.M. (2006). Library 2.0 theory: Web2.0 and its implications for libraries. Retrieved August 30, 2009, from http://www.webology.ir/2006/v3n2/a25.html
Stephens, M. (2006). Wikis. Library Technology Reports, 42(4), 52-57. Retrieved August 26, 2009, from Library, Information Science & Technology Abstracts with Full Text database.
Watson, K., & Harper, C. (2006). Using blogs and wikis to communicate with library clients. Retrieved August 26, 2009, from http://www.alia.org.au/publishing/incite/2006/12/print.html?ID=138
Monday 31 August 2009
Review 3- Emerging technologies changing our services delivery models
Invited from Yuyi Morales on Vimeo.
As entering the world of Web 2.0, librarians need to seek a new technology to enhance, broaden library services and increase effectiveness. This article introduced several new and free technologies that are suitable for libraries to enhance their services. Author had widely illustrated the new technologies and given the example how libraries applied it in library services. These technologies include: Blogs, Wikis, Rss feeds, Podcasts, Vodcasts, Web conferencing and Instant messaging.
Blogs
Traditionally, Blog is an online diary where author can publish any content and express what they feel. Blogs can be a library promotional tool to inform user the new events or services of library. Also, users can give comment to the Blogs so that it enhances the interaction between library and users. One of the example is Madison Public Library published a blog for providing basic news, new services.
The best library blog 2007
Hey Jude
A Library By Any Other Name
Wiki
The second technology which author described is Wiki software. Wiki is a web-baed platform that is open editing so that users can contribute, promote, edit and delete any or all content. For example, Wiki is be used as a book club in The Princeton Public Library which called BookLovers that readers can post reviews on the it.
RSS
RSS is an XML format and a supplement of internet browser. It informs users the website or blogs has been updated and give quick headlines from thousand of website which users applied. Librarians use RSS to publish information to the users. RSS is used to inform users about the new journal content or new additional of library materials in particular field which users expect for.
Photos from workbench
Podcasts and Vodcasts
‘A podcast is an audio program distributed over the internet.’ (Kajewski, 2007) and Vodcast is an acronym for Video On Demand. Users can download the video program and audio recording from internet. Similar to Blog, librarians can upload different kind of program such as training tools, new book reviews, interview and tutorials to internet so that users can subscript those audios and then download them to iPod or MP4 player.
Web Conferencing
Web conferencing is a technology that makes a group meetings and live presentation through internet. Normally, the web conferencing involves PowerPoint presentation and web co-browsing. The host and participants can speak, text, view the presentation by using web conferencing software. By using this technology, local libraries can bring the services to rural and small libraries.
Instant messaging
Instant messaging is software that allows communication between two or more people using typed text via computer real time. (Kajewski, 2007) Librarians provide virtual referencing services to their users by using instant messaging.
This article give a deeply introduction of the new technologies to world of Library 2.0. Author used a lot of public library as an example to prove that the new technologies benefits libraries services, but the shortcoming is what barriers and difficulties are libraries faced when they applied those technologies are not discussed. Casey and savastinuk (2006) pointed out that librarians should consider whether libraries are already improving and adding the services by using new technologies. If author can talk more about how small or rural libraries use those technologies to enhance the services and what problems they face, the article may become more persuasive and comprehensive.
To close, it is a wonderful article to give great overview new and free technologies and show how those technologies can be used in libraries environment. However, while libraries implement new services by the new technologies, it should be consider its location, budget constraints and a lack of awareness and expertise. (Bejune, 2007, p.33)
Reference List
Bejune, M. (2007). Wikis in Libraries. Information Technokoy & Libraries, 26 (3), 26-38. Retrieved August 25, 2009, from Academic Search Premier database.
Casey, M.E., Savastinuk, L.C. (2006) Library 2.0: service for the next-generation library. Retrived August 28, 2009 from http://libraryjournal.com/article/CA365200.html?q=Library+2%2E0.
Kajewski, M. (2007) Emerging technologies changing our service delivery models. The Electronic Library, 25(4), 420-429. Retrieved August 25, 2009, from Emerald Management Xtra Complete.
Review 2– Library 2.0: service for the next-generation library
The nature of internet is changing to Web2.0, library environments is also changing. Librarians are trying to apply Web2.0 technology to library services. This topic is discussed in the article ‘Library 2.0-Services for the next-generation library’ by Michael E. Casey and Laura C. Savastinuk. In this article, the changes which library faced, the difficulties on applying Library 2.0 services, both physical and virtual are widely discussed.
What is Library 2.0?
Web2.0 is involving users to participation in the internet; Library 2.0 is inviting users to create both the physical and virtual services they want. As the article said,’ the hearty of Library 2.0 is user-centered change.’ The important issues which are highlighted in the article are how to tap the new users and how library keep up with the changing needs of library users. Library 2.0 similar to Web2.0, it will be a meeting place where users able to create their content and information.
Long Tail
Traditionally, librarians satisfy in providing major services to major group of customers. Libraries effort in providing different services such as Interlibrary Loan, or home delivery books to their users. However, as article states, ‘non-users might be better served if librarians consider what’s called the long tail’, (Casey & Savastinuk, 2006).Long Tail is not always better be served as well as ibrary services are not being used by a majority group. Without consulting with users is difficult to evaluate the library services meet the users needs and want. In order to know the needs and desire of users, librarians are trying to use Web 2.0 technology to enhance the interaction with users.
the yellow bar is long tail
Source from OCLC
The aim of Library 2.0 models is giving library users to participate in library services. As Casey & Savastinuk (2006) said, ‘Library 2.0 model seeks to harness our customer’s knowledge to supplement and improve library services’. Long tail can give comment, write reviews, and create their own tags and ratings on library webpage. By consulting the expectation and needs of the long tail, librarians provide more customized services so that users may feel library is improved.
Difficulties
No doubt that Library 2.0 can improve library services, but Library 2.0 is technology based so that not all the Library can employ programmes or maintain a large IT staffs. The major concept of Library 2.0 is creating communication with library users. It requires a lot of time and human resources to harvest, analyses and give feedback to the users’ opinions. Therefore, if libraries are not really to enter the world of Library 2.0, it is better to consider physical functions that will better serve current customers as well as bring in the news one.
New model
Although there is many consideration of applying Library 2.0 in Libraries, authors had given several successful examples. Such as South Huntington Public Library provides and iPod Shuffle loan Program and some of the libraries had created special area for teens and community activities. To successfully provide and improve library services, libraries should have a ‘tendency to plan, implement, and forget’(Casey & Savastinuk, 2006). Authors used the Public Library Association’s Planning as example to illustrate that the importance of measuring the worth of current services and system producers when libraries starting applying Library 2.0.
The article talked about the concept of Library 2.0 and the difficulties which Libraries faced. However, services are physical and virtual. If libraries are not already to enter the world of Library 2.0, it is better to ‘review with a fresh eye to determine if any aspect needs updating’. (Casey & Savastinuk, 2006) Librarians need to keep surveying, consulting both current and potential users.
Reference List
Casey, M.E., Savastinuk, L.C. (2006) Library 2.0: service for the next-generation library. Retrived August 28, 2009 from http://libraryjournal.com/article/CA365200.html?q=Library+2%2E0.
What is Library 2.0?
Web2.0 is involving users to participation in the internet; Library 2.0 is inviting users to create both the physical and virtual services they want. As the article said,’ the hearty of Library 2.0 is user-centered change.’ The important issues which are highlighted in the article are how to tap the new users and how library keep up with the changing needs of library users. Library 2.0 similar to Web2.0, it will be a meeting place where users able to create their content and information.
Long Tail
Traditionally, librarians satisfy in providing major services to major group of customers. Libraries effort in providing different services such as Interlibrary Loan, or home delivery books to their users. However, as article states, ‘non-users might be better served if librarians consider what’s called the long tail’, (Casey & Savastinuk, 2006).Long Tail is not always better be served as well as ibrary services are not being used by a majority group. Without consulting with users is difficult to evaluate the library services meet the users needs and want. In order to know the needs and desire of users, librarians are trying to use Web 2.0 technology to enhance the interaction with users.
the yellow bar is long tail
Source from OCLC
The aim of Library 2.0 models is giving library users to participate in library services. As Casey & Savastinuk (2006) said, ‘Library 2.0 model seeks to harness our customer’s knowledge to supplement and improve library services’. Long tail can give comment, write reviews, and create their own tags and ratings on library webpage. By consulting the expectation and needs of the long tail, librarians provide more customized services so that users may feel library is improved.
Difficulties
No doubt that Library 2.0 can improve library services, but Library 2.0 is technology based so that not all the Library can employ programmes or maintain a large IT staffs. The major concept of Library 2.0 is creating communication with library users. It requires a lot of time and human resources to harvest, analyses and give feedback to the users’ opinions. Therefore, if libraries are not really to enter the world of Library 2.0, it is better to consider physical functions that will better serve current customers as well as bring in the news one.
New model
Although there is many consideration of applying Library 2.0 in Libraries, authors had given several successful examples. Such as South Huntington Public Library provides and iPod Shuffle loan Program and some of the libraries had created special area for teens and community activities. To successfully provide and improve library services, libraries should have a ‘tendency to plan, implement, and forget’(Casey & Savastinuk, 2006). Authors used the Public Library Association’s Planning as example to illustrate that the importance of measuring the worth of current services and system producers when libraries starting applying Library 2.0.
The article talked about the concept of Library 2.0 and the difficulties which Libraries faced. However, services are physical and virtual. If libraries are not already to enter the world of Library 2.0, it is better to ‘review with a fresh eye to determine if any aspect needs updating’. (Casey & Savastinuk, 2006) Librarians need to keep surveying, consulting both current and potential users.
Reference List
Casey, M.E., Savastinuk, L.C. (2006) Library 2.0: service for the next-generation library. Retrived August 28, 2009 from http://libraryjournal.com/article/CA365200.html?q=Library+2%2E0.
Review 1- Users collaboration in websites
Web 2.0 differs from Web1.0. Web 2.0 brings the internet in to next generation which users can participate in a website, as well as contribute the data or through tagging, comments, rating and review. It is easy to form a community around the Web.
At the beginning of the article, author listed some excellent example of Web2.0 concept such as eBay, Wikipedia, Blogger, Amazon and Google.
This article talked about how library using of Web2.0 as a library services. National Library of Australia took two services as gateways to resources that meet the needs of their clientele. These two services are PictureAustralia and Australia Dancing.
PictureAustralia began in 1998 and now provides access to over million pictures. It aimed to let users search online pictorial collections. This service allows users to be built up relationship with the website interfaces. Users upload their images to PictureAustralia groups. National Library then harvests the photos and thumbnails and adds them to PcitureAustralia. Author pointed out that the projects increased the incentive of the users to take pictures with contribution to PictureAustralia. Users can add tags to pictures to identified subject of the picture which then assists other users in finding images when searching. Due to successful of PictureAustralia project, some institutions likes Powerhouse Museum refer to PictureAustralia to start experimenting with tagging their tagging collections
Australia Dancing is another service federated directory of resources held in Australian collections that are contains biographical material about Australian dancers. Author had used comprehensive passages to describe Australia Dancing. But studying himself, author gave a good example of comparison with Wikipedia.
At the end of the article, author raised the point “Biographies-killer data”. In the Web2.0 world, every user can contribute any information to the website in results that bulks of information flood in the website. In order to maintain and provide access to authoritative biographical information, National Library has been toying with the idea if repurposing and extending the Australian Name Authority File.
The shortcomings I discovered is the major topic of the articles was not been clearly presented. In the beginning of the articles, author told us what is meant of Web2.0 and the Internet as platform. Although author use two services as example to demonstrate how web2.0 affect library services, authors did not provide clearly presentation it and did not present how the service benefits to users. In additional, this article is a study of author himself and lack of evaluation to support his points. As author said ‘the project has not been widely promted yet and so I can’t say very much more about its outcomes’ (Pearce 2006). It is suggest comparing two examples to other services of their type. It can strongly to proof and demonstrate the view of point.
To conclude, Author used a two example to present how to use Web 2.0 technologies to create new library services to users. Picture Australia is successful to rise users’ interesting and build up a communication between libraries and users. However, the Australia Dancing project seems unsuccessful because it was not widely promoted to users. A successful project to users not only based on the new technologies, but also based on the trust of users and their collaboration.
Reference List
Pearce, J. (2006) User collaboration in websites. Retrieved August 25, 2009 from http://www.nla.gov.au/nla/staffpaper/2006/jpearce1.html
At the beginning of the article, author listed some excellent example of Web2.0 concept such as eBay, Wikipedia, Blogger, Amazon and Google.
This article talked about how library using of Web2.0 as a library services. National Library of Australia took two services as gateways to resources that meet the needs of their clientele. These two services are PictureAustralia and Australia Dancing.
PictureAustralia began in 1998 and now provides access to over million pictures. It aimed to let users search online pictorial collections. This service allows users to be built up relationship with the website interfaces. Users upload their images to PictureAustralia groups. National Library then harvests the photos and thumbnails and adds them to PcitureAustralia. Author pointed out that the projects increased the incentive of the users to take pictures with contribution to PictureAustralia. Users can add tags to pictures to identified subject of the picture which then assists other users in finding images when searching. Due to successful of PictureAustralia project, some institutions likes Powerhouse Museum refer to PictureAustralia to start experimenting with tagging their tagging collections
Australia Dancing is another service federated directory of resources held in Australian collections that are contains biographical material about Australian dancers. Author had used comprehensive passages to describe Australia Dancing. But studying himself, author gave a good example of comparison with Wikipedia.
At the end of the article, author raised the point “Biographies-killer data”. In the Web2.0 world, every user can contribute any information to the website in results that bulks of information flood in the website. In order to maintain and provide access to authoritative biographical information, National Library has been toying with the idea if repurposing and extending the Australian Name Authority File.
The shortcomings I discovered is the major topic of the articles was not been clearly presented. In the beginning of the articles, author told us what is meant of Web2.0 and the Internet as platform. Although author use two services as example to demonstrate how web2.0 affect library services, authors did not provide clearly presentation it and did not present how the service benefits to users. In additional, this article is a study of author himself and lack of evaluation to support his points. As author said ‘the project has not been widely promted yet and so I can’t say very much more about its outcomes’ (Pearce 2006). It is suggest comparing two examples to other services of their type. It can strongly to proof and demonstrate the view of point.
To conclude, Author used a two example to present how to use Web 2.0 technologies to create new library services to users. Picture Australia is successful to rise users’ interesting and build up a communication between libraries and users. However, the Australia Dancing project seems unsuccessful because it was not widely promoted to users. A successful project to users not only based on the new technologies, but also based on the trust of users and their collaboration.
Reference List
Pearce, J. (2006) User collaboration in websites. Retrieved August 25, 2009 from http://www.nla.gov.au/nla/staffpaper/2006/jpearce1.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
