CHAPTER FOUR – LIBRARY 2.0 MODEL
4.1 Web 2.0
It is generally accepted that Web 2.0 provided the impetus for Library 2.0 (Casey and Savastinuk 2007b). It is logical, therefore, to explore the concept before focusing on Library 2.0. The term
“Web 2.0” was coined by O‟Reilly Media in 2004 to explain the way in which a new generation of web functions – file sharing, wikis69 and blogs – differed from earlier web tools. Though original web developers like Vannevar Bush who developed Memex70 in 1945 and Ted Nelson who pioneered the hypertext71 concept in 1963 envisioned a more interactive web, latter developers
69 Wikis are online information resources and sites that allow users to add and edit content collectively.
70 This is a concept of online library that enabled researchers to follow and annotate links which are of interest to them (Cerami 2003).
71 Ted Nelson coined the term hypertext in 1963 to describe a new information management technology he conceptualized. His vision involved implementation of a “docuverse”, where all data was stored once, there were no
101
focused more on advanced linear applications hence realizing only one facet of the technology. In this regard, the earlier web tools – now commonly described as Web 1.0 – were based on the restrictive one-way communication models where experts presented their material to an audience perceived to be expectantly captive. The concept of Web 2.0, on the other hand, espouses the idea that humans are each others‟ teachers; that knowledge originates from interactions such as meetings, conversation, dialogue and mentorship; and that even experts have something to learn from their audiences (Alsbjer 2008). To foster richer user participation, the World Wide Web (WWW) has undergone a transition and moved from being a mere collection of websites to a fully-fledged computing platform serving web applications to end users. This transition is what is described as Web 2.0 (O‟Reilly 2005a; Miller 2006; Wikipedia Contributors 2009e; Maslov, Mikeal and Leggett 2009). Ultimately Web 2.0 services are expected to replace desktop computing applications for many functions using newer tools such as social networking sites, wikis, pervasive communication tools, and folksonomies that emphasize online collaboration and sharing among users (O‟Reilly 2005a).
Though the term suggests a new version of the web, it does not refer to an update of the Internet or WWW technical standards, but to changes in the ways they are used.
The emergence of Web 2.0 may have been necessitated by a number of factors including the need to replicate offline social networks on the Internet. Definitely, Web 2.0 makes the Internet more sociable and real. It is on this framework that social media tools such as MySpace72, blogs and Facebook were developed. With the increasing ubiquity of the Internet, such social network sites are slowly becoming part and parcel of daily communication tools for many people worldwide. The tools are so popular that many people are now spending several hours daily interacting through them, even in the workplace. Consequently, many companies, especially in the private sector, currently use filters to block social media, especially MySpace and Facebook during working hours.
There is ongoing debate whether these filters are justified or not. Those who support the filtering explain that companies lose valuable employee time through social media activities leading to low productivity and bandwidth congestion. On the other hand, there are people who are of the view that these tools can be used to leverage business and should not be shut out of the workplace.
Besides, the latter school of thought asserts that blocking such sites is tantamount to infringing the
deletions, and all information was accessible by a link from anywhere else (Stewart 1996). This is the concept now applied by social media tools such as Wikis.
72 This is a social networking personal space on the Internet.
102
communication rights of the workers. The debate is still ongoing and its conclusion is not foreseeable in the near future (Humphries 2007; Partee 2007; Sinrod 2007).
Musser and O‟Reilly (2007) identify the primary drivers of Web 2.0 as: 1) globalization and the need to reach to customers worldwide; 2) increased 24/7 connectivity making the Internet an essential part of the basic necessities of life for many people; 3) growth of the Internet accessibility locations enabling customers to remain connected everywhere they go and to expect services on the move; 4) deepening of digital interactions and transactions in which customers are now not just connected but engaged – contributing content and transacting business; and 5) transformation of the web to become a business facilitator enabling enterprises to reach more clients and generate more revenue.
According to Musser and O‟Reilly (2007), Web 2.0 platforms and tools exhibit the following core characteristics:
1. It enables web users to do more than just retrieve information. This is the reason why it is also called the read-write web; it enables users to actively interact with the content as well as its creators. This is the foundation of user-generated content73 and citizen journalism74; 2. It enables users to execute applications straight from their browsers and they can own data
on a Web 2.0 platform. They may also control the data;
3. Web 2.0 enables users to add value to the content they are accessing. This facility leads to a seamless exchange of information building a robust body of knowledge that is sometimes called collective intelligence;
4. It utilizes simple, user friendly and “lightweight” interfaces that do not require specialist knowledge to apply;
5. Web 2.0 systems are greatly decentralized with no centre of control or gates75 as we know it under conventional media systems;
6. It is user-focused and invites their participation through seamless many-to-many communication mechanisms;
7. Web 2.0 is transparent and uses open technology standards that rapidly grow into open ecosystems of loosely coupled applications built on open data and reusable components; and
73 This is content which is contributed by the end-users as opposed to traditional media producers (Oien 2009).
74 This is a new journalism concept in which members of the public play an active role in collecting, organizing and disseminating media content (Gillmor 2006).
75 Control points that restrict information flow.
103
8. It is emergent and does not rely on fully predefined application structures. Web 2.0 structures and behaviours are allowed to emerge over time. This flexible, adaptive strategy permits appropriate solutions to evolve in response to real world usage and needs. It recognizes the fact that real success comes from cooperation and not control.
Andrew McAfee (2006), a Harvard Business School professor, explains that Web 2.0 systems generally have the following key features:
1. Search – a facility that enables users to seek information using keywords;
2. Links – references to information resources;
3. Authoring – facility to enable users to co-author resources;
4. Tags – continuous categorization of information resources which is flexible and not bound by pre-determined structures;
5. Extensions – using algorithms to automate work and pattern matching; and 6. Signals – a way of informing users of updates on resources of interest.
Common Web 2.0 tools include social networking utilities like MySpace and Facebook; electronic commerce solutions and sites facilitating complete real-time business transactions such as Amazon.com, eBay (online auctions) and online classified adverts on Craigslist; discovery sites like StumbleUpon76; enhanced search engines like Google; groupware such as Eventful for sharing calendars and diaries or social bookmarking for sharing bookmarks; and citizen journalism solutions such as YouTube (for sharing videos) and Flickr (for sharing photos) (Musser and O‟Reilly 2007).
The list is growing rapidly with the majority of the upcoming tools being open source.
In an effort to simplify Web 2.0, O‟Reilly (2005b) proposed a meme map (See Fig. 4.1) which graphically illustrates the concept of Web 2.0. The orange rectangular part at the centre denotes the primary principles of Web 2.0. For instance, the web as a platform summarizes what Web 2.0 really is: a platform where users meet, discover information, remix and share knowledge. It is a platform where users create an experience using information from diverse sources. The green oval shapes at the top give examples of Web 2.0 tools. The brown oval shapes from the middle downwards highlight the characterization of Web 2.0 use. These include the environment in which its use is
76 StumbleUpon is a Web resource that enables users to discover and share websites based on set personal preferences.
It is accessible on http://www.stumbleupon.com.
104
optimal (trust, play, hackability); the dynamic nature of Web 2.0 products (perpetual beta, software that gets better the more people use it, emergent user behaviour); the attitude with which the products are used (play, trust, right to remix); and the diverse categories of information resources available on Web 2.0 platforms (small pieces loosely joined). It also shows that Web 2.0 creates and sustains a rich user experience that engages the user as a creator and user simultaneously.
Fig. 4.1- The Web 2.0 meme map Source: O‟Reilly (2005b)
Web 2.0 demonstrates that monolithism77 is no longer tenable or desirable. Instead, different users hold and contribute small pieces of information which are loosely joined to create a versatile collection through various mechanisms of user participation. Evidently, this approach works better in a decentralized architecture which harnesses the value of multiple sources (Coombs 2007;
Hinchcliffe 2005).
77 This term is used here to refer to amassing of huge library collections to which access is highly restricted.
105
Miller (2005) asserts that leveraging the approaches typified by Web 2.0 offers libraries many opportunities to serve their existing audiences better, and to reach out beyond the walls and websites of the institution to reach potential beneficiaries where they happen to be, and in association with the task that they happen to be undertaking at that time. He summarizes it all by saying:
With these approaches, we take our existing wealth of data, and we make it work much harder. We begin to break down the internal silos of the separate systems within a single library, and we connect those components to one another, and to related components and services far beyond the building. At a technical level, we make it possible for searchers to be presented with choices to view online, borrow locally, request from afar, buy or sell as appropriate to their needs and circumstance. Technically, it is possible, and we are doing it with standards and specifications shared across a range of sectors, rather than inventing our own library-specific standards once again (Miller 2005:Web 2.0 + Library = Library 2.0).