The following are critical reviews of four articles written by professionals with exemplary careers in their field of expertise. Roxanne Missingham and Fred Heath are both library professionals while Paul Anderson and Moira Levy are computer scientists. Levy has also an advanced degree in knowledge management. While Anderson’s article concentrates on Web 2.0 application on libraries, Levy focuses on Web 2.0 and knowledge management. Heath’s article expresses optimism in library’s future in a digital world while Missingham reports on libraries’ role in promoting free and quality information through collaboration.

Web 2.0 and the Librarian

The following review is based on Paul Anderson’s editorial, ‘All That Glitters is not Gold-Web 2.0 And the Librarian’ published in the December 2007 issue of the Journal of Librarianship and Information Science. Anderson is a technical editor and a computer scientist with over twenty years experience working in computing both in academia and industry. Anderson tackles the question of what Web 2.0 is as he proposed a framework for analysis of this much asked question in the information world. Termed as Library 2.0, the editorial touches on the potential impact of Web 2.0 from within the library community. Because of lack of consensus, Anderson calls for an agreed definition of Library 2.0 and encourages librarians to engage in the development of libraries-based Web 2.0 services. This review will discuss the important issues in the editorial. In particular, it will concentrate on Web 2.0 as viewed by Anderson, his proposed framework for analysis of the subject, and his analytical contribution on Library 2.0-Web 2.0’s applications on library services.

Anderson (2007) asserts that public users’ expectations go with the rapidly changing technology-rich environment. He specifically cites as an example the Amazon’s book delivery process compared to the much slower inter-library loan process. Anderson (2007) claims that although speedy delivery is an important feature of Amazon’s services, it is not due to Web 2.0 function. Thus, he points out a wrong assumption of the scope and influence of Web 2.0, a term that no one really knows as there has been lack of agreement among writers about the subject. Despite of efforts of some individuals, definitions of Web 2.0 vary, with some focusing on the technology and others on the user (Murley, 2008). As a result, Abram (2005, p.45) humorously ended up with this definition: “Web 2.0 is just the title of a conversation. There is no standard (at least not just a single one). We can all participate.”

Because of this confusion about web 2.0, Anderson (2007) proposes three aspects of his framework for analysis and for discussion based on his JISC Technology and Standards Watch report. The first aspect includes the visible “surface” consisting of social software applications such as You Tube, Flickr, My Space, Bebo, and Facebook ; the second aspect consists of the Six Big ideas from Tim O’Reilly (2005) original paper on the subject matter; the final of Anderson’s framework includes the web technologies and standards that include XML, AJAX, Flash, etc.(Anderson, 2007). Anderson’s layered framework approach combines both the users’ perspective as well as the technical dimension. The visible surface and the second aspect should serve the users point of view, while the second and third aspects obviously deal with the technical perspectives of Web 2.0. This proposal by Anderson should placate both advocates of technology and users on Web2.0 alike. It also conforms to the suggestion by Bechina & Ribiere (2009) that web 2.0 should be seen as the convergence of two trends- technological trends and social dimensions.

Anderson (2007) discusses Web 2.0 and its impact within the Library community, termed by both critics and advocates as 'Library 2.0’. The term is believed to have been first used by Michael Casey in his blog Library Crunch (Stephens, 2007). However, like Web 2.0, Library 2.0 is also a contentious issue. Crawford (2006, p.4), compiled the diversity of different perspectives (sixty-two views and seven definitions, quotations from at least thirty-six librarian bloggers, and his own commentary) of what commentators think about Library 2.0 -  it is about “the technology, people, or revolution in the ways we think about and provide library services, or nothing new, that librarians have always evolved to meet the changing needs of library users and adopted new technology to support library services”. Because of this wide range of views, Anderson (2007) emphasizes an urgent need to have an agreed definition about the subject. However, with the issue of Web 2.0 (which Library 2.0 relies on as viewed by technologists) still not resolved, a call on a final definition of Web 2.0 would probably be more appropriate. Critics like Crawford (2006, p31) may just stick with their argument that “there is no need to put a name to discuss, demonstrate and build real-world uses of the new tools, techniques, and philosophies as most of the philosophies are not new.” It is doubtful if such a heed for a uniform definition of Library 2.0 will succeed. The article concludes with a call for librarians to engage, have more influence and say in the development of new type of technologies that would be useful in the library community and “to be prepared to experiment and to take risks”(Anderson 2007, p.196).

The title matches the chaotic nature of the much discussed terms Web 2.0 and Library 2.0. Overall, Anderson’s editorial has provided this reader a glimpse of the potential applications of the terms and the controversies that surround them.  Due to their popularity in the library community, different literature abound,  making the public get more confused as they read more about them. Indeed, Web 2.0 and Library 2.0, despite their glitters, are quite contentious. 

References

Abram, S. (2005). Web 2. Huh?! Library 2.0, Librarian 2.0, Information Outlook, 9(12), 44-46.

Anderson, P. (2007). All that glitters is not gold: Web 2.0 and the Librarian. Journal of Librarianship and Information Science, 39(4), 195-198. DOI:10.1177/096100607083210

Bechina, A.A.A., & Ribiere, V. (2009). Is the Emergence of Social Software a Source of Knowledge  Management Revival? Proceedings of the European Conference on Knowledge Management, 56-65.

Crawford, W. (2006). Library 2.0 and “Library 2.0”. Cites & Insights, 6(2)1, 1-32. Retrieved from http://citesandinsights.info/civ6i2.pdf.

Murley, D. (2008). What Is All the Fuss about Library 2.0?. Law Library Journal, 100(1), 197-204.

O’Reilly, T. (2005). What is Web 2.0 : Design Patterns and Business Models for the Next Generation of Software. O’Reilly. Retrieved from http://oreilly.com/web2/archive/what-is-web-20.html.

Stephens, M. (2007). Foreword, in Michael E. Casey & Laura C. Savastinuk, Library 2.0: A Guide to Participatory Library Service, xv.