All that glitters is not gold: web 2.0 and the librarian

ARTICLE 1.

Anderson, P. (2007). All that glitters is not gold: web 2.0 and the librarian. Journal
of Librarianship and information science, 39(4), 195+.


SUMMARY
Paul Anderson’s primary focus is to create a framework for the term Library 2.0 taking for a starting point the history of Web 2.0. His article’s main purpose is to give the groundwork in which further discussions and debates on the subject can take place within the library community. The article outlines key areas that libraries should be looking at with regard to Web 2.0. First he outlines the basics of Web 2.0:

• The most obvious Web 2.0 applications which Anderson calls “the visible ‘surface’” [2007, p.196] such as social networking sites, wikis, podcasts, blogs etc.

• “The Six Big Ideas” [p.196] adapted from O’Reilly’s seminal paper on the topic [2005]

1. Individual production and user-generated content
2. Harness the power of the crowd
3. Data on an epic scale
4. Architecture or participation
5. Network effects
6.Openness

• Web technologies and standards

Anderson [2007] then delves into the arena of library specific Web 2.0 issues:
The “focus on reaching out from the constraints of a library” [p.196] Anderson here is referring to both the physical space and the clusters of single library groups.
The magnitude and speed of change to services over the internet is briefly outlined. It does not explore the pressure this places on librarians as well as some users in the community.
Ethical issues around the use of Web 2.0 such as privacy and copyright. Anderson believes librarians are in a unique position in this regard due to our strong “public sector ethos” [p.196]

He concludes with a word of advice “librarians need to start to mobilize their skills and to deploy them in new directions – to be prepared to experiment and take risks.”[p.196]

REVIEW
The article covers its brief adequately, given its brevity, yet fails to give a clear picture of Library 2.0. Granted the aim was not to give a definitive vision of Library 2.0. While the call for more peer-reviewed work on the subject is understandable he does little to clarify it himself. He says there is an “urgent need … for an agreed definition of Library 2.0” [p.196] and fails to provide his own. Surely providing a framework for future scholarship includes a definition? Scholars seldom agree on definitions so claiming urgency on agreeing to one seems very unrealistic. Usually one comes to a general sense of the term as each scholar brings their own definition to the table. Maness (2006), in his excellent article on the subject, defines Library 2.0 as “the application of interactive, collaborative, and multi-media web-based technologies to web-based library services and collections” [p.2].

Given the self proclaimed brief to set the framework for future discussion perhaps the article could have given more open questions. Some other issues it could have proposed as discussion points include the fundamental concern that “harnessing the power of the crowd” [p.197] changes the role of librarian and how this change is manifested. The collaborative nature of the new library environment could come to the point of blurring the lines between creation and consumption of content just as it has in Web 2.0. What does this mean for the professional nature of librarianship?

It is an interesting point that Library 2.0 will “offer new and more efficient ways of bringing together pieces of data held in individual libraries (e.g. collections catalogues, members’ details) “ [p.196] entering the muddy waters of copyright and privacy. The power of collaboration is very significant if the afore mentioned barriers can be overcome. This is the only article that even hints at the ethical issues involved in copyright. Overcoming the issues is no mean feat. Copyright and privacy issues cause serious headaches for librarians trying to use Web 2.0 technologies. For example a podcast of a university lecture where they have used images on slides or PowerPoint. Who as the copyright to those images are they able to be published on the web? Or when putting collections online like the current University of Queensland Library’s project to digitize and make available all UQ theses where tracing the copyright owners has been a long and arduous task.

The article does very well outlining Web 2.0, less so on Library 2.0, although some of the issues he touches upon are extremely significant.