What's Wrong?

LibraryCrunch has just reported that the term "Library 2.0" is being considered for deletion in Wikipedia. It's caused a ruckus. Understandably, there is discomfort with the term. What is it? What does it mean? I've discussed in a previous post my attitudes towards Web 2.0, I have similar thoughts for Library 2.0. Although it's disconcerting to see the overreaction, it's also exciting to see that controversy is forcing us to reexamine our profession and what it constitutes. Let's see where Wikipedia takes us in the next while.

Library 2.0

Michael Habib's Master's degree thesis is released. With great anticipation comes great expectations. All are met. It's definitely worth a read. What do I think of Library 2.0? It's a nice catchy term, definitely part of the "2.0" wave. However, stripped down to its essence, the principles of Library 2.0 need to be adapted into the library setting. It's the natural progression of where the profession and its resources are heading. So why should we resist? Let's use the ideas which best serves the user.

Mashups for Librarians

I recently gave a presentation on mashups. People were interested, and most of all, they realized that there's a lot one can do with mashups. I believe that librarians and information professionals need to know what mashups are, particularly since they are an essential element of Web 2.0. A mashup thus does exactly what Web 2.0 technology is supposed to: they allow greater interactivity, more user control of information, user personalization, the development of online communities, and greater democratic management of information.

Why are mashups relevant for information professionals and librarians? Matthew Dames lists two reasons: First, social software tools such as mashups are the perfect opportunity to extend its reach beyond the library building, particularly in a time when there is real fear that patrons are no longer use reference services as vehemently as they once did. Second: job security. Social software tools such as mashups allow librarians to “reclaim” areas of influence and expertise in the organization that have been ceded to the IT department.

I'd add one more, and it's pretty obvious: the main goal of the health librarian (and all librarians, for that matter) is to serve his or her user. Mashups help achieve that goal, and then some.

Open Access = End of Publishing

Library 2.0 has just written an intriguing entry titled, The Coming End of Completed Publications. Indeed, Library 2.0's entry has an exclaimer which warns us it's too early to judge whether the end of publishing as we know it will occur. But Library 2.0 does pose some interesting scenarios in regards to how open access is slowly bringing in complexities to the game of printed publishing.

Marketing Open Access

Today, UBC librarian Hilde Colenbrander gave a fascinating presentation on open access. She pointed out that the "impact factor" plays a large hand in the OA movement. The reason why is that scholars have an incentive to publish in established and prestigious journals. For young scholars who want tenureship, they must get published in such journals, not in open access publications, freely available to all.

Heleen Gierveld's recent article, Considering a Marketing and Communications Approach for an Institutional Repository proposes an "8P's" as a strategy for promoting institutional repositories. This article complements a previous entry that I had made, and supports the idea that creativity is essential for the OA movement.

One thing Colenbrander said which stood out in my mind: research and development. With a hectic work schedule, most academic librarians simply do not have time for study and reflection on gigantic issues such as open access. Without support from their institutions, librarians simply cannot devote the proper attention necessary. But librarians are supposed to be at the forefront of this moment; they need more support than they are currently given.

NHL on Google

The wait is over. The National Hockey League (NHL) has paved the road for professional sports' entrance into open-access. Understandably, there will be skeptics who cringe at the thought of a corporate entertainment giant taking a plunge into the online environment, and making a profit at the same time. But the NHL has just made an agreement with Google Videos which allows entire broadcasts to be online. Hence, classics such as the Vancouver Canucks-New York Rangers' Game 7 of the Stanley Cup finals can be seen in its entirety, or games that you missed from yesterday can be replayed at a click of a mouse.

But the NHL is making a bold move. By putting its games online, it has unwittingly joined the realm of open-access, which includes among other things, "open collaboration, open authoring, open platforming, and open searching for everyone." Whether this hurts its NHL Network cable broadcasts remains to be seen. (They are live events, compared to Google Video's 4 hour tape-delay). As a sports fan, this is an unbelievable day. As a proponent of Web 2.0, I am ecstatic. The champagne is flowing endlessly. Let the games begin!

Web 3.0? How about 4.0?

Not surprisingly, some people are disturbed with Web 2.0. What is it? What makes it so different from Web 1.0? What is Web 1.0? It is understandable that there is anxiety, coupled with a certain element of skepticism.

With that said, I introduce to you Web 3.0. What is it? Phil Wainewright, a technology expert, believes that Web 2.0 is but a "transitional" period proto-Web 3.0 stage, where the best is yet to come. What do I think? Be careful what you wish for. Sooner or later, Web XP will be the latest version of the web that you and I will be using...

Oh, So This Is A Systematic Review

Yesterday's session on systematic review searching was an eye-opener. It turns out that I've been doing systematic review searching the whole time, but never knew it! It's no wonder why researchers have kept on insisting that I keep a list of my search terms and databases in my literature searches. As an uninformed searcher, I had wondered why do they need it? They've got the articles, they're useful, why do they need to be so careful about such seemingly "unimportant" data?

I'll ask the question again: Why do we need systematic review searching? The reason, as Mimi Doyle of the Centre for Clinical Epidemiology and Evaluation reveals, is so that researchers can keep a tab of how much time they had spent on a project (for things like accounting audits). Not only that, as part of the scientific method, the experiment should have reproductibility, which means that everything from searching to the actual experimentation and apparatuses needs to be as documented as carefully as possible. This is a fascinating revelation: searching in the health sciences is every bit as scientific as the labs that go on each day. It's all part of the bigger picture
in healing.

The Tale of Two Professions

I recently went to a luncheon hosted by the Vancouver Association of Law Librarians (VALL) with whom the talented Eugene Barsky gave a talk on Wiki's. The similarities between medical librarianship and law librarianship caught my attention. After freshly returning from a conference in Seattle from the Pacific Northwest Chapter of the Medical Library Association where I spoke to medical librarians about the salient issues of the day, I was intrigued to hear similar discussion echoed among law librarians (and technicians).

Conclusion? Things aren't so different between these two supposedly very different areas of librarianship. Social software, Web 2.0, recruitment, employment forecasts all came up during discussion. (In fact, Christina Tribe of Harper Grey tells me that 50% of her time is spent on medical databases and CISTI). One person who participated at the luncheon has a blog entry which has striking relevance to medical librarianship and echoes a similar problem. I'd like to share with you an excerpt:

So who must pay attention to this? Well first of all - VALL. We (I speak as a member of the Executive) have to prepare our membership. Mentoring and training are goingnto be more important than ever. Next up, UBC SLAIS. The legal bibliography course needs to be offered regularly, and we need to support it (be it Teresa Gleave or another local Librarian who takes on this huge task).

Replace the legal terms/people with medical terms/people and you'd find the above arguments to be highly relevant and interchangeable in both areas. In my opinion, because both professions - law and medicine - are so specialized, they require talented and creative individuals to fill its posts, especially one which requires information retrieval. Answer? Librarians of the future.

New Frontiers

At the PNC/MLA Conference in Seattle, Terry Henner, Associate Professor and Head of Information & Education Services of the Savitt Medical Library at theUniversity of Nevada School of Medicine, gave a fascinating presentation on a collaboration project between the Savitt Medical Library and a consortia of local public health organizations to build information sharing capacity into a regional obesityreuction initiative. His presentation highlighted how information technologies can support and enhance the activities of care providers, educators, and advocates who have entered into a regional coalition aiming at reducing obesity rates.

Two things particularly stood out for me. First was Henner's introduction of social software into the library environment. In using RSS to Javascript, a program that seamlessly integrates RSS feeds directly to the webpage, Henner's project removed the previous inhibitions of users about creating their own aggregators and feedreaders by doing the work for them, thus making the homepage more accessible and user-friendly.

Second, Henner left an indelible mark for me about the acceptance of new experimental technologies. In his conclusion, he makes clear the point that not everyone will accept what you think is integral: "Utility is in the eye of the beholder." What an excellent point. Simple, yet so often overlooked. We often want results right away -- but in doing so, we forget that it takes time and patience for others to follow. (However, "Resistance can be overcome" as he argues). Henner leaves us with what I thought was the best quote to take home with me: "Some success is better than none." A marvellous anecdote: if we create something out of nothing, then perhaps that itself is an achievement worthy of celebration.

Changing the Face of Searching?

Well, as you may have heard by now, Ms. Dewey is a brand new search engine that is taking a run at Google. Reviews are all over the blogosphere now. However, it's so unique that I'm going to hop onto the Blogosphere Express and offer my two cents:

(1) Interface - Well, what more can I say. It's definitely a diversion from Google's simplicity. There's more to look at, that's for sure. But I like it. It's fresh, dynamic, and interactive. The only drawback is that the search results are a bit cumbersome to navigate.

(2) Web 2.0-compatible - To date, there's still no search engine that makes witty comments, shows signs of moodiness, and has an interest in your searches. True, it's artificial, but it's still not a bad attempt at user interaction. When one types in a search term or phrase, Janina offers a commentary. If the question is bizarre enough, Janina might even perform a short skit.

(3) Effectiveness - In the end, the question is, can it do what it's supposed to do? I've done quite a few searches. It's definitely no Google. A little trick that I use to determine an engine's effectiveness is to try finding a journal article by simply by typing in the full (or partial) article title. Ms. Dewey unfortunately comes up short (but so does Yahoo! and MSN Live). Google still rules at the end of the day.

(4) A new type of search engine - The "traditional" search engine days of Google and Yahoo! are increasingly challenged by up and comers. The clustering search engines such as Clusty and Vivisimo are great tools; and the visual search engines like Kartoo are also great as well. And now we have the "interactive" search engine. What does this all mean? There's still a ways to go before Ms. Dewey can offer us searchers something substantial. Perhaps Janina can offer a witty remark to that.

Restful in Seattle

Sunny weather. Good food. Great people. Even greater conversations. Exactly what I experienced from a very successful and rewarding conference down in Seattle from the PNC/MLA Conference, "Mission in the Mountains." Still processing the vast amount of information absorbed from the speakers, presentations, and posters, I'm excited to present my take of the trip.

But what was my highlight of the conference? Definitely the Roundtable Luncheon where a group of highly motivated and curious librarians and information professionals talked about wikis, blogs, and RSS. I was asked what was Web 2.0. I've been blogging a great deal about social software and learning as much as I can about this fascinating topic, but when asked what it all means, I ironically stumbled for the right explanation, and was almost at a loss for words about Web 2.0 and its implications for an library and information centre setting? So much to say, where to begin?

I managed to summarize my ideas in less than three sentences, crunched with key terms as "user-centred," "open access," and "social interaction." More importantly, I stressed that Web 2.0 is not easily definable -- rather, it is "state of mind." Had I known that I would be asked for my opinion, I would have introduced to my colleagues a wonderful article by Jack Maness, "Library 2.0 Theory: Web 2.0 and Its Implications for Libraries," which is fittingly published from an open-access journal. Web 2.0 is still in a fairly new, and experimental stage, and requires time for evolution. The best is yet to come. I hope that my message had got across the table. Maybe. Just maybe.

Library 2.0 -- An Experiment

I feel like we're all taking the same train. But more the merrier: all aboard. Library 2.0: An Academic's Perspectives has written a wonderful blog about an actual real-life example about a library that uses social software. This is what he writes:

There are some people who rightly sing the praises of the Ann Arbor District Library because its site is blog-based. However, blogs are restrictive relative to wikis in that the typical user cannot create an entry but only comment on it. In the library context, librarians are in control of their Web site content and users can only respond. This is valuable, to be sure, but in terms of radical trust (a Library 2.0 buzzword), it falls short.

This is a fascinating experiment. A blog is a good start - but wikis? Why not? I say, go for it. The possibilities are endless (IF designed properly). There are probably other library catalogues that are using social software features. Where are we going? Hopefully, to a more interactive, more accessible tool for users and patrons for all libraries and information systems. The game's still early, but it's already very promising from the looks of Ann Arbor District's brave, bold step forward.

To Blog, or Not to Blog, that is the Question

I'm a proponent of looking at both sides of a coin. While I'm a huge supporter of social software and its potential impacts on the information society, I am also interested in listening to the arguments against blogging and its potential controversies.

A few months ago, GeekNurse was shut down due to management concerns. The symptoms? "Management-concern-itis." According to blogosphere rumours, hospital managers could not stand an employee's public persona and growing following. Of course, blogging is a powerful social tool where online communities can share ideas and exchange commentaries, but can an organization be really threatened by one person's "cult" following? Can blogging really be so detrimental to a work place environment, particularly one that deals with health?

Let's hope that the controversial shut down of Geek Nurse does not set a trend. When personal homepages became possible in the early 1990's, the same jittery fears brewed in cyberspace. Employees were fired, scandals broke, and homepages hacked. But eventually, things died down, and in fact, so did personal homepages to a certain extent.

What is my take, you ask? Blogging is here to stay. Although it's still too early to tell what blogging will look like a few years from now, we're on the cusp of change and innovation, so my take is to stay tuned and stay alert. Personal homepages from commercial services did not work as well as blogging because as a Web 1.0 technology, homepages did not allow room for social interaction, while blogging does. However, blogging has yet to evolve to the point where it can be considered true Web 2.0. It's still a work in progress, which truly makes this is an exciting time for all.

Copyright Infringement, You Say?

I recently watched Birth of a Nation on Google Videos, and it was great. I could've rented it or purchased it, but instead of doing all that, I simply typed in the title and voila, 3 hours of history right within my grasp. (Google even entertains as well). While such a phenomen probably deserves a plethora of articles from a communications, information science, sociology, economics, business, and just about any disipline's view point, what is most pressing to me is its place in Web 2.0.

Doesn't it feel like something this good probably crosses some legal ramifications? According to GigaOM's post, yes. In fact, a number of Bollywood hits can be seen online right after its theatre release -- and it's a matter of time that it's going to get out of hand. But in the meantime, isn't it ironically strange that open access is challenging both studios and DVD piracy? I wonder how much Kung Fu Hustle costs out in the black market these days...