Wednesday, March 28, 2012

A Critical Review of ‘All That Glisters Is Not Gold’ – Web 2.0 and the Librarian by Paul Anderson

Anderson writes at a particular moment in the history of Web 2.0 three years after the term was coined (2007b, p195). He suggests that discussions about the impact on libraries were generalised and would benefit from a framework such as his relatively modest proposal (2007b, p196)[1]. He does not attempt to define ‘Library 2.0’ though he notes others have (2007b, p196). His framework is based on his own previous work on Web 2.0 (2007a).

He points out that explanations of Web 2.0 often consist of lists of web services, and derives from this his first aspect, the “surface” of Web 2.0 (2007b, 196). It is unclear how such lists constitute a framework, but perhaps he is pointing out that discussions may be about specific instances. These sites are simply exemplars of the second aspect, “Six Big Ideas” (2007b, p.196) which are:
  •  Individuals produce and contribute content
  • Collective knowledge 
  • Massive Data repositories 
  • Architecture of Participation
  • Network effects
  • Openness
 He suggests the third aspect of Web 2.0 discussions should be about technical protocols[2].
 This is a rather complex view of a “framework”. Rather than suggesting three “aspects” it would have been simpler to refer to the robust “Six Ideas” while pointing out that discussions may include specific sites, applications or technologies. His six points may also oversimplify what was originally a broad idea presented by O’Reilly (2005). The complexity of O’Reilly’s ideas may be judged by looking at his “meme map” shown to the right (click to enlarge).
  
Anderson then points out aspects of Web 2.0 that will impact libraries. He firstly notes the idea of libraries extending beyond their physical boundaries (2007b, p196), though misses the larger idea that libraries may well become places of facilitation rather than repository. He also notes that librarians will be able to deploy social networking sites to encourage reading and involvement (Melbourne Library Service (2012) is one example).
  
His comments on “perpetual ‘beta[3]’” introduce the idea that we are involved in ever faster change. (This has led some futurists to the extreme concept of a singularity event, (Kurzweil 2009)). Business and service organisations are struggling to keep abreast. A second and insightful comment follows: librarians may need to learn how to “experiment and take risks” (Anderson 2007b, p196).
Finally he makes a significant proposal. Libraries have long held to a central ethic of respecting privacy and supporting copyright (see Houghton and Berryman, 2007, pp.270-71), and he proposes that libraries can make a contribution by enunciating their concerns when technologies blithely ignore these ethical areas[4].
  
Anderson’s article was a timely contribution to a developing discussion. He suggested the need for more formal articles and proposed a framework for further discussion based on Web 2.0 concepts. While it may have been sounder to focus on the Big Six Ideas rather than the superimposed Three Aspects, the ideas themselves are indeed at the heart of changes taking place, and his further comments on areas of interest to libraries show some helpful insights.

[1] Anderson himself refers to the rate of change of technology as one of the hallmarks of Web 2.0 (2007, p196) and indeed it now seems that technologies can emerge and become pre-eminent in astoundingly short time frames. As an example, while Apple product sales data is hard to get, Apple did report over 37 million iPhones sold in the financial quarter ending December 2011 (Apple Reports, 2012). This product was first announced in June 2007 just a few months prior to Anderson’s article being published.  Mobile devices don’t feature in Anderson’s overview, and the iPad launched in 2010 is likely to have an even more significant impact on libraries.
[2] . It is interesting to note his inclusion of Flash … to prove his point about rapidity of change Adobe has announced it is not going to develop Flash further (Flash Focus, 2011).
[3] A beta test occurs when a version of software (or a web site) is released to the public or a limited group of participants in order to seek further error reports and allow for improvements prior to full scale launching. The phrase here takes on the meaning of constant upgrades.
[4] This case is now famously highlighted by Google’s astonishing efforts to create Google Books by scanning and publishing the complete content of the Harvard library without first obtaining author’s and publisher’s permission… a project that the Harvard library was obviously complicit with (Google Books History 2011).








References


Posted by at
Labels:
Location: Castle Hill NSW 2154, Australia

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)