InfoScope

Can libraries make use of social software?  Should they?  I’ve been giving some thought to the vision of Library 2.0  as outlined in Wikipedia:

The active and empowered library user is a significant component of Library 2.0. With information and ideas flowing in both directions – from the library to the user and from the user to the library – library services have the ability to evolve and improve on a constant and rapid basis. The user is participant, co-creator, builder and consultant – whether the product is virtual or physical.

Whether you agree with the Library 2.0 label or not, if this is the goal, then social software provides some excellent ways to work towards it.  The key components include:  two-way flow of information, rapid response to change, and user as participant and co-creator.    In particular, the use of blogs, wikis and instant messaging seem to be well-suited to meeting these requirements.   

But the real key is that each library community is different, and what makes one community tick is different from another.  The Library 2.0 vision does not explicitly state that one must use a bunch of cutting edge technologies in order to belong to the L2 club (although  some, like John Blyberg, would argue that it is an implicit assumption).  As librarians and information professionals, part of our role then, may be to determine how best to facilitate community information use and sharing.  This may involve the use of a lot of social software technologies or… not.   

I will admit right off the bat that I have never been able to get into podcasts.  I think it stems from the fact that I am not an auditory learner.  The thought of having to listen to a lecture without any visuals is downright intimidating to me.  I’ve always had trouble understanding and learning new and complex information when there is no visual component.   So being aware of my own biases and limitations,  I tried to explore this week’s readings and case studies on podcasting with an open mind.

I was surprised to learn that podcasting has some interesting characteristics that I didn’t know about, as pointed out in the articles by Connie Crosby and The Educause Learning Initiative, as well as in this week’s excellent group presentation:

• First, they are intended to be portable.  You can listen to them on your iPod or MP3 player.  I have always listened to podcasts at my computer, but it only makes sense that you can listen on a portable device.
• Secondly, they are syndicated so if you subscribe, you will receive the newest updates.  Again, I was unaware of this feature. 
• Finally, they have seriality.  Crosby says that there is an element of committment involved in real podcasting.  This made me think of podcasting sort of like audio-blogging.  You have to post regularly to keep your listener-ship. 

In exploring some of the library podcasts I realized that I would probably be able to get more out of a podcast if the information was broken down into chunks for me.  As a result, I like the way Dowling College Library gives a little outline (including time marks) for the topics covered in each of their podcasts.  Although I wasn’t able to listen due to some technical difficulties, this type of information would make a big difference to someone like me.  Just knowing where the podcast is going and what will be covered helps a lot.   I also realized that many podcasts are more like radio programming with a variety of content such as music and interviews.  This is more appealing to me than a lecture-style educational podcast and I would probably find this type of programming useful and enjoyable. 

Although Lansing Public Library has an informative  Podcast Information Page  I found the directory of podcasts hard to understand.  You just don’t know what you’re going to get when you click on the links.  Is something going to start downloading?  What?  So when I clicked on “adult programs” I was suprised to find myself on a page that had non-podcast links (to blog entries)  in addition to a podcast link (which again wouldn’t load properly).  It was confusing. 

I think that libraries can use podcasts effectively.  For one, they can be used as a PR tool.  Crosby talks about Jim Milles who has raised the visibility of his library by creating a podcast called Check This Out!  Libraries can also create podcasts on their websites to help their users make the most of library resources.  A couple of things that I thought might be good uses for podcasts in this context  include presenting information in other languages such as library hours, programming and events.  Also, this technology might be useful for individuals that have difficulty reading. 

While I still don’t know how much I will ever make use of podcasts, I am open to the idea that they might be useful for others.  By making information available in a variety of formats and by using different technologies, libraries can better match the unique needs of individual users.

Meredith Farkas  talks about how some libraries are using MySpace and Facebook to build an online presence.  There are many examples of libraries that have pages on MySpace such as Hennepin County Library and Brooklyn College Library.  However, somehow these sites seem kind of like the “cool parents” at the kids’ party.  Despite achieving some measure of success (as judged by the number of friends and comments)  I am left with the uneasy feeling that something is not quite right with the picture.  Should libraries be actively entering users’ social space to push their agendas?  We can go to where the users gather socially, but to me this seems intrusive.  Remember Danah Boyd and the need for “youth space”? 

Casey Bisson sums it up nicely:

After all, people have been gathering in bars for years, but we don’t see branches opening in Cheers or libraries offering Irish coffee in their new coffee shops.

He suggests that we should instead be looking at how information is being exchanged using these technologies.  Users collaborate, share information and make comments. Can they do these things on their library’s website?  Stephen Abram asks some really insightful questions related to the success of these social networking sites and discusses what we can learn from them.  What is really needed are library initiatives that focus on building tools that reflect the underlying community while at the same time serving the purpose of access to information.

After checking out both MySpace and Facebook I came to the conclusion pretty quickly that these sites are primarily for the teen/young adult age groups.   However, quite accidentally I came across another site called Care2Connect.     It’s not a popularity contest, but rather a place for people to gather who want to make a difference.  An alternative for those who are older than 25?

There’s been a lot of controversy over the the Deleting Online Predators Act (DOPA) recently.  At first glance, it only makes sense to restrict online predators from access to youth on social-networking sites such as MySpace.  The act would ensure that facilities that receive federal aid (namely schools and libraries) would simply block minors from accessing social networking sites.  This would be for their own protection, of course.  Problem solved.  But at what cost? 

Danah Boyd discusses how youths have seen a decrease in access to “youth space”.  The reasons for this may be due to a lack of mobility, an increase in organized activities such as sports as well as a general parental fear of the dangers that lurk “out there”.  As a result, teens spend most of their days in spaces controlled by adults and other authorities, such as schools, adult-run clubs & teams, and even at home where parental rules apply.   But this is not the case in the digital world, where youth can create spaces to just “hang out”.  This space, while it may be threatening to adults, is important according to Boyd, because it is where youth make connections, figure out the rules and become socialized.  

Wade Roush also points out that there is already a “participation gap” between teens who have access to social-networking sites at home, and economically disadvantaged youths who may need to access these sites from school or the library.  DOPA would simply increase this digital divide between advantaged and disadvantaged youths.   

So if youth need a place to “hang out”, then what is the solution?  According to Henry Jenkins:

If educators really want to protect young people, they would teach social networking in the classroom.

Joanne Barrett also points out that youth often don’t see social-networking sites as public, where information they post about themselves will be seen by many others and where they will leave digital footprints.  Cyber-bullying and harassment is also an issue.  She agrees that there is a need to educate youth to use these tools wisely.  In MySpace and Deleting Online Predators Act: Discussion with Henry Jenkins and Danah Boyd,  there are some practical suggestions for parents and other adults to help in educating youth about the use of social-networking.  

Adults can’t stop teens from making mistakes.  Trying things out and taking risks is part of the teen experience.  Providing information and discussion surrounding potential problems and issues and then standing back and hoping that their kids will be OK (for better or worse) is what parents have been doing for a long time.   We need to let them have “TheirSpace”.

When I read through many descriptions of folksonomies and tagging there is often a  glowing reference to the fact that it is bottom-driver, user-centered and gives “power to the people” as Emanuele Quintarelli notes.  Elyssa Kroski talks about how now users have the power to classify and organize content.  But I think that it’s important to recognize that there is something else going on when we tag.  As John Udell points out, when we tag we are first and foremost thinking about our own needs.  We just want to remember our links.  It just happens to be a happy coincidence that we are also creating a system (I can’t quite bring myself to call it a classification system) that helps us find information on the Internet.  I would argue that what this results in is description rather than classification.  

In order to classify things, one must specify relationships, and some relationships are hierarchical.  I have to admit that whenever I look through lists of del.icio.us tags, my first impulse is that I want to organize the links into folders.  I was very relieved to read Sam Kome’s article because he reviews cognitive psychology research that basically says that categorization is a fundamental human activity.  The whole point of hierarchies is to decrease cognitive effort. 

Maybe we should start looking at tagging as an interesting experiment in description as opposed to an attempt at classification.  I think it would take a little pressure off my poor tired hierarchical brain.

We’ve had a lot of fun, but it’s time for me to move on…

…but seriously,  after checking out Connotea I’ve realized that not only can I tag links and view others’ tags, but I can combine this feature with bibliographic information resulting in a form of “social reference management”.   Another very cool feature in Connotea (as Lund et al point out) is the ability to add comments about a link that everyone can see, which produces a conversational thread as different users add their comments.   I was also surprised to see that on the front page of Connotea the most popular bookmarks were almost all social software and library related.   Although CiteULike offers similar tools, the community seems to be more scientific.  And if part of the point of social bookmarking is to share links, then choosing your community is important.    Unfortunately, not being a Firefox 2.0 user (yet), I can’t use Zotero, which also looks intriguing. 

…so that’s why when it’s time to get serious about managing my bookmarks I’ll be choosing Connotea.  Sorry del.icio.us.

 As an interesting aside:  for those of you currently job-hunting, Zotero is  looking for a “technology evangelist”. 

In Even Tastier than del.icio.us, Philip Hollenback talks about some neat additions to use with del.icio.us.  One tool called extisp.icio.us  lets deli.cio.us users display their tags as a “random textual scattering” or as a group of images based on image searches for tag names, simply by typing in a user name.  In the tag view, clicking on a tag will link you to the del.icio.us tag page (for that user).  Unfortunately, the way the tags are organized isn’t very helpful.  They appear on top of one another, and some of them are so small that they are unreadable.  Since I can already view my tag cloud right in del.icio.us (and it looks a lot better) I’m not sure why I would want to use this version.  Images do not link to the del.icio.us tags.  Overall, this is sort of interesting, but I can’t really think of how it would be very useful. 

You can view my extis.icio.us results here:

Tags

Images

As Angela Kille points out in her paper, wikis are excellent knowledge management systems.  She discusses how reference librarians can take advantage of communal knowledge in such ways as ready reference databases, peer resource guides, library instruction information and collaborative workspaces.  Although not just for internal librarian use, Butler WikiRef includes some similar features to those suggested by Kille.  It provides collaborative reviews of reference materials, includes a reference users group and even includes wikis for specific course assignments where it appears students are expected to collaborate on their projects.  

Meredith Farkas also suggests library wikis for subject guides (SJCPLSubjectGuides is an example of this), annotation of the catalogue (great idea!),  for internal employee communication surrounding projects and events (as seen at Bull Run Library)  and even envisions the library wiki as the hub of a virtual community.   Although what Farkas seems to be referring to is a community resource for everything from library events to information about housing, wikis can also be useful for more specific communities such as book clubs.  Princeton Public Library BookLoversWiki is an example of a more defined community in which users can share information about what they’re reading.  Unfortunately, this community only appears to exist in the summer.  Perhaps letting the group continue on without as much librarian involvement or moderation would have been an interesting experiment.  Trust your community, remember?

This may relate to having really excellent instructions and explanations of what the wiki is for and how to use it.  In many cases it appeared that the librarian was the only one adding any content (for example this seemed to be the case at Ohio University Libraries BizWiki).  Wyoming Authors Wiki does a really good job of explaining the process of adding information.  A structure has been set up presumably by the library,  and then the wiki relies on the community to provide the content.  Unfortunately without joining their community, I was unable to check to see who was contributing information. 

My conclusions about library wikis?  To be successful a library wiki should be created to serve a real community information need.  The librarian should act as a facilitator for input from community members by providing access to the wiki (including clear instructions and some structure where appropriate).   In an ideal WikiWorld, the librarian would then stand back, offering guidance and support only as required,  and let the community take over.

When I first heard about Wikipedia I thought it was a really crazy idea.  I mean, would you trust just anyone to provide you with authoritative information?  Is this a source that you could cite on a research paper?  While I continue to have a few issues to resolve in that department, I have to admit that my views on wikis have changed considerably.  Wikis are a great way to promote virtual community in a way that’s not arbitrary.   If someone has information that the community can use, it is easy for him or her share.  Changes made are completely visible to all, so if the group disagrees with revisions, the page can simply be changed back  (“soft security”).  Brian Lamb points out that there are usually more fixers than breakers and in this way, wikis have a self-regulatory function.    Wikis are also dynamic and they challenge the notion of ownership.  Lamb notes that the content of wikis is “ego-less, time-less and never finished.”  They can have many authors and the content may continually evolve. 

On the negative side, it is possible for the site to be vandalized, and the content can become disorganized if not tended to.  Wikis often lack an organizational structure, which can also be confusing to new users.  Meredith Farkas likens the wiki administrator to a gardener tending flowers (pages), getting rid of weeds (spam) to promote growth (new ideas).  However, in the true sense of community, the care and upkeep of the wiki should be in the hands of the users.  And this will require trust in the community.  It will require handing over some of the control that authorities have traditionally held.   On this note, a final quote from Lamb:

Change is happening. What remains unknown is whether educators, institutions, and developers will join (or coexist with) the revolutionary forces or whether they’ll stand their ground and simply be overrun.