“Library 2.0: Balancing the Risks and Benefits to Maximise the Dividends”

1,587 views

Published on

Bridging Worlds Conference 2008, Singapore
Day Two Track Four
Speaker 2 - Brian Kelly

Published in: Education, Technology
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
1,587
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
56
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
23
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

“Library 2.0: Balancing the Risks and Benefits to Maximise the Dividends”

  1. 1. Library 2.0: Balancing the Risks and Benefits to Maximise the Dividends Brian Kelly, UKOLN University of Bath Bath, BA2 7AY UKOLN is supported by: http://www.ukoln.ac.uk/web-focus/events/conferences/bridging-worlds-2008/ This work is licensed under a Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 2.0 licence (but note caveat) Resources bookmarked using ' bridging-worlds-kelly-2008 ' tag Acceptable Use Policy Recording of this talk, taking photos, discussing the content using email, instant messaging, blogs, SMS, etc. is permitted providing distractions to others is minimised. Email [email_address] Blog site http://ukwebfocus.wordpress.com/
  2. 2. About Me <ul><li>Brian Kelly: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>National Web adviser to UK Universities and cultural heritage organisations </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Based at UKOLN, a national centre of expertise in digital information management and located at the University of Bath </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Involved in Web since January 1993 </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Current Information World Review’s Information Professional of the Year </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Over 300 presentations given since 1997 </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Current area of interest include Web 2.0, Web standards and Web accessibility </li></ul></ul>Introduction
  3. 3. Using Tools I Talk About <ul><li>Work activities use Web 2.0 technologies & approaches: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>RSS feeds for structured information </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Geo-location data </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Exploitation of 3 rd party services </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Openness of resources </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Risk assessment / management approaches </li></ul></ul>Introduction Talks given Jan-Sept 2008 Note also use of blogs, video blogs, YouTube Twitter, …
  4. 4. About This Talk <ul><li>This talk: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Provides a brief summary of Web 2.0 and Library 2.0, with some examples of its use </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Describes barriers to the successful deployment of Library 2.0 </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Looks at ways of overcoming such barriers </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Acknowledging the barriers </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Risk assessment and risk management </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Staff development, new media literacy, … </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Embracing diversity </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Cultural change </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>… </li></ul></ul></ul>
  5. 5. Web 2.0 <ul><li>What Is Web 2.0? </li></ul><ul><li>Marketing term (derived from observing 'patterns') rather than technical standards - “an attitude not a technology” </li></ul>Web2MemeMap, Tim O’Reilly, 2005 <ul><li>Characteristics Of Web 2.0 </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Network as platform </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Always beta </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Clean URIs </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Remix and mash-ups </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Syndication (RSS) </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Architecture of participation </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Blogs & Wikis </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Social networking </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Social tagging (folksonomies) </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Trust and openness </li></ul></ul>Web 2.0
  6. 6. Library 2.0 <ul><li>Library 2.0: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Term coined on LibraryCrunch blog </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Definition available on Wikipedia </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Also note: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Arguments about validity of the term </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Quality issues regarding Wikipedia entry </li></ul></ul>
  7. 7. Academic Library Example <ul><li>University of Wolverhampton provide 5 blogs to support academic departments </li></ul><ul><li>An Electronic Resources Newsletter is driven by blog software. The information is available via: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>RSS </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Email </li></ul></ul>
  8. 8. Academic Library Example <ul><li>A Facebook page provides: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Brief factual information </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Links to key resources on main Web site </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Dynamic content embedded via RSS </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Calendar information embedded via Google calendar </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Ability for users to become ‘fans’ </li></ul></ul>
  9. 9. Academic Library Example <ul><li>Google calendar is used: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>For key library events </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>To allow event details to be embedded in a variety of sites, including pages on institutional Web site </li></ul></ul>
  10. 10. National Library Example <ul><li>National Library of Wales “ Shaping the future: The Library’s strategy 2008-2009 to 2010-2011 ”: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>“ We propose taking advantage of new online technology, including … Web 2.0 services … </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>It is expected that the Library itself will provide only some specific services on its website. Instead, the intention is to promote and facilitate the use of the collections by external users, in accordance with specific guidelines.” </li></ul></ul>Example of use of Web 2.0 services embedded within a Welsh Assembly Government funded project
  11. 11. Research Library Example <ul><li>NRC-CISTI (National Research Council of Canada and Canada’s National Science Library & Publisher) is engaging with Web 2.0’s opportunities : </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Use of wikis to support collaboration by staff / researchers </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Use of SOA approaches to integrate services </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Popularity of Facebook in Canadian universities </li></ul></ul><ul><li>and challenges : </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Privacy laws (similar to EU) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Multi-lingual issues </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Popularity of Facebook in Canadian universities  </li></ul></ul>
  12. 12. Benefits of Library 2.0 <ul><li>Delivery Mechanisms (“network as platform”): </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Global outreach : maximise impact of and engagement with ideas </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Outsourced services : allowing organisations to focus on their strengths and small institutions to engage on more equal terms </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Exploits infrastructure : the standards (e,g. RSS) & services (Google, Amazon, ..) now in place </li></ul></ul><ul><li>User Benefits: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>User can create content </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Can comment on other’s content </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Users no longer passive consumers of content </li></ul></ul>
  13. 13. Takeup Of New Technologies <ul><li>The Gartner curve </li></ul>Developers Rising expectations Trough of despair Service plateau Enterprise software Large budgets … Early adopters <ul><li>Chasm </li></ul><ul><li>Failure to go beyond developers & early adopters (cf Gopher) </li></ul><ul><li>Need for: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Advocacy </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Listening to users </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Addressing concerns </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Deployment strategies </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>… </li></ul></ul>This talk now looks at approaches for avoiding the chasm and shaping the curve
  14. 14. Evidence of Perceived Barriers <ul><li>Series of Web 2.0 workshops for UK cultural heritage organisations is providing evidence of the barriers to effective use of Web 2.0 services </li></ul>
  15. 15. The Barriers Barriers Sustainability of services Data lock-in Data protection, privacy, … Lack of expertise Lack of interest: colleagues Costs Accessibility Difficulties in selection Inappropriate content Does it deliver expected benefits? Lack of interest: users
  16. 16. The Barriers Are Real! <ul><li>Personal example using Squirl.info: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>A record of books I’ve read (data gathered from Amazon) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Others have complained </li></ul></ul>My data was exportable via RSS but (a) how usable is this and (b) how obvious is this solution? Barriers <ul><ul><li>Amazon interface broke in Feb 2008 </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>But there is an export function … </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>… which is broken </li></ul></ul>
  17. 17. Sustainability of the Services <ul><li>“ Network as the platform”: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Great when it works </li></ul></ul><ul><li>But: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Reliance on 3 rd party companies with no negotiated contracts </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Uncertainties over reliability, performance and long term sustainability </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>It’s not just the small companies, either: </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Twitter </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Slideshare (Amazon dependencies) </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Google apps (e.g. GMail) </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Skype (when large MS updates released) </li></ul></ul></ul>Barriers
  18. 18. Privacy, Data Protection, … <ul><li>Digital cameras, mobile photos, camcorders, … are increasing volume of photos / videos being taken and being published online. </li></ul><ul><li>But what about issues such as: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Privacy </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Data protection </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Confidentiality </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>… </li></ul></ul>Barriers
  19. 19. Lack of Expertise & Resources <ul><li>Further feedback on barriers (and possible solutions) has been obtained from workshops for cultural heritage organisations: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Lack of in-house expertise </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Lack of support from management </li></ul></ul>Barriers
  20. 20. Inappropriate Content <ul><li>Inappropriate content might include: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Spam comments on blogs </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Pornography </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Misleading information </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Illegal content </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>… </li></ul></ul>Barriers Over 250,000 spam comments submitted to the UK Web focus blog from Nov 2006 – June 2008
  21. 21. Beware The IT Fundamentalists <ul><li>We need to avoid simplistic solutions to the complexities: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Open Standards Fundamentalist: we just need XML </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Open Source Fundamentalist: we just need Linux </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Vendor Fundamentalist: we must use next version of our enterprise system (and you must fit in with this) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Accessibility Fundamentalist: we must do WAI WCAG 1.0 </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>User Fundamentalist: must do whatever users want </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Legal Fundamentalist: it breaches copyright, … </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Ownership Fundamentalist: must own everything we use </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Perfectionist : It doesn't do everything, so we'll do nothing </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Simplistic Developer : I've developed a perfect solution – I don't care if it doesn't run in the real world </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Web 2.0 : It’s new; its cool! </li></ul></ul>Barriers
  22. 22. The Librarian Fundamentalists <ul><li>Librarians: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Think they know better than the user e.g. they don't like people using Google Scholar; they should use Web of Knowledge (who cares that users find it easier to use Google Scholar & finds references they need that way?) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Think that users should be forced to learn Boolean searching & other formal search techniques because this is good for them (despite Sheffield's study). </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Don't want the users to search for themselves (cf folksonomies) because they won't get it right. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>They still want to classify the entire Web - despite the fact that users don't use their lists of Web links. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Want services to be perfect before they release them to users. They are uneasy with the concept of 'forever beta' (they don't believe that users have the ability to figure things out themselves and work around the bugs). </li></ul></ul>Barriers
  23. 23. Accessibility Barriers <ul><li>Accessibility of public sector Web sites: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>In 2002, the European Parliament set the minimum level of accessibility for all public sector websites at Level Double-A. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Riga eInclusion Declaration agreed to promote inclusive e-government by 'ensuring accessibility of all public Web sites by 2010, through compliance with the relevant W3C common web accessibility standards and guidelines'. </li></ul></ul>But don’t many Web 2.0 services infringe WCAG 1.0 guidelines with, e.g., dependencies on AJAX technologies. Barriers
  24. 24. Addressing Barriers <ul><li>How do we address such barriers: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Ignore them and take risks </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Refuse to engage with Web 2.0 </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Or adopt a balanced approach: </li></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Assess and manage risks </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Staff development </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>New media literacy / Transliteracy </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Evidence-based policy-making </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Clarification of purposes of services </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Re-interpretation </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Sharing solutions </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Clarification of responsibilities </li></ul></ul></ul>Possible Solutions
  25. 25. Interoperability Issues <ul><li>What happens if Social Web services host your data and: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>You can’t get the data back out? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>You only get the unstructured or poor quality data back out? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>You can’t get the comments, annotations, tags out? </li></ul></ul><ul><li>There’s a need to: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Ensure data export capabilities or </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Upload data from an alternative managed sources </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Understand limitations of data export / import and make plans around limitations </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Perhaps accept limitations </li></ul></ul>Possible Solutions
  26. 26. Sustainability Concerns … <ul><li>What happens if Social Web and Library 2.0 services: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Are unreliable? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Change their terms and conditions (e.g. start charging)? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Become bankrupt </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Things to remember: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Services may be unreliable e.g. Twitter </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Market pressure is leading to changes to T&C – & paid-for services may become free (e.g. Friends Reunited) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Banks may go bankrupt too – but we still use them </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Need for risk assessment and risk management </li></ul></ul>Possible Solutions
  27. 27. .. In Troubled Economic Times <ul><li>What if the worst case scenarios occur? </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Externally-hosted Web 2.0 providers : What if the services provided by Google, Yahoo, etc. prove uneconomic and the services are shut down or the terms and conditions changed, with perhaps free-to-use services becoming subscription services? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Our information providers : What if the services provided by individuals within our institution, who use Slideshare, Flickr, del.icio.us, etc. aren’t sustainable because the individuals may face redundancy, early retirement, etc.? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Our institutions : What if the economic downturn affects the sustainability of the IT services provided within our institutions? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Our national services : What if the national services provided for our communities are similarly adversely affected, with users preferring the services provided by the global services? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Our funding organisations : What if our funding bodies have less funds available, and are forced to stop or reduce the level of funding provided to national or institutional services? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Our user communities : What if our users expectations or interests change? </li></ul></ul>Web 2.0 In Troubled Economic Times , UK Web Focus blog, 24 Sept 2008
  28. 28. Managing Expectations <ul><li>IAVE (International Association of Volunteer Effort) was “ founded in 1970 by people who saw volunteering as a means to make connections across cultures ” </li></ul><ul><li>But the IAVE Social network: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Only has 4 members </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>And no discussions </li></ul></ul>Possible Solutions
  29. 29. Support Issues <ul><li>I don’t have the time to: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Understand it all </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Use the technologies </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Embed technologies in daily working practices </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Train my colleagues </li></ul></ul>Common Craft video clips <ul><li>You can: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>View them at work </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Listen to the podcast on the Tube </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Use them in training </li></ul></ul>Possible Solutions
  30. 30. Maintaining Blog Enthusiasm <ul><li>Had a blog for a while and lost your enthusiasm? </li></ul><ul><li>Worried that you won’t have anything interesting to write about? </li></ul><ul><li>The comments on the content of the blog were very pleasing for me: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Invariably relevant and thought provoking. Informed opinion that is not opinionated. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Entries and variety very interesting. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Excellent, I can’t remember reading anything that I thought was a waste of my time. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Informative and thought-provoking — it’s good to read a blog about ‘web 2.0′ that manages to raise interesting questions rather than being dogmatic about the ‘right’ way to do things. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>marvellous - timely, detailed, open, and invitingly humble! </li></ul></ul>Have an online survey to solicit feedback – the feedback may reinvigorate you Possible Solutions You are not alone – there are many resources which provide advice on topics to blog about But perhaps blogging isn’t for you – not everybody has to blog, as I have discussed on my Seesmic video blog
  31. 31. Deployment Strategies <ul><li>I want to do use the Social Web but: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>The IT Services department bans it </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>The council bans it </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>My boss doesn’t approve </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Area of interest to UKOLN: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>“ Just do it” </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Subversive approach – ‘Friends of Foo’ if Foo can’t use it </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Encourage enthusiasts </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Don’t get in the way </li></ul></ul>UKOLN briefing papers available (with CC licence). More to be released shortly. Possible Solutions
  32. 32. IWMW 2006 & Risk Management <ul><li>Since IWMW 2006 we’ve taken a risk management approach to its evaluation of Web 2.0 technologies: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Agreements : e.g. in the case of the Chatbot. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Use of well-established services : Google & del.icio.us are well-established and have financial security. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Notification : warnings that services could be lost. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Engagement : with the user community: users actively engage in the evaluation of the services. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Provision of alternative services: multiple OMPL tools. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Use in non-mission critical areas: not for bookings! </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Long term experiences of services: usage stats </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Availability of alternative sources of data : e.g. standard Web server log files. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Data export and aggregation: RSS feeds, aggregated in Suprglu, OPML viewers, etc. </li></ul></ul>Possible Solutions
  33. 33. New Media Literacy <ul><li>Information Literacy: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Can the library users assess and use the information they find using well-established retrieval tools </li></ul></ul><ul><li>New Media Literacy / Transliteracy: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Can the library users assess and use the information they find using a diversity of tools </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Are the users aware of the ethical aspects covering creation, use and reuse of content (copyright, plagiarism, …) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Users covers senior managers and policy makers & not just conventional library visitors, students, … </li></ul></ul>Possible Solutions Shouldn’t libraries be taking a leading role in developing and implementing new media literacy strategies
  34. 34. Re-interpreting Accessibility <ul><li>Web 2.0 services may not comply with WCAG 1.0 accessibility guidelines: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>But many Web 1.0 sites fail to comply too </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>The guidelines themselves are flawed </li></ul></ul><ul><li>We can: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Make use of WCAG 2.0 guidelines (much better) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Seek to address the accessibility of the purposes of the digital services, rather than the digital resources themselves: </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Blended accessibility for blended learning </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Holistic accessibility </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>See papers of Accessibility 2.0, Holistic Accessibility, … </li></ul></ul></ul>Possible Solutions
  35. 35. Re-interpreting Preservation <ul><li>The JISC-funded PoWR project sought to engage with the preservation implications in a Web 2.0 environment </li></ul><ul><li>The project has used blogs and wikis to support its work </li></ul>Possible Solutions
  36. 36. Is Web 2.0 Different? <ul><li>Implications of Web 2.0 for Web site preservation: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Use of 3 rd party services (‘ network as platform ’) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Content  collaboration and communication </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Richer diversity of services (not just a file on a filestore/CMS/database) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>More complex IPR issues </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Let’s look at: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Case study 1 - Wikis </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Case study 2 – Blogs </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Case study 3 – Reusing data </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Case study 4 – Disposable data </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Case study 5 – Slideshare </li></ul></ul>Web 2.0 Possible Solutions
  37. 37. Case Study 1: A Public Wiki <ul><li>WetPaint wiki used to support various workshops </li></ul><ul><li>Approaches taken: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Open access to all prior to & during event (to minimise barriers to creating content) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Access restricted to WetPaint users after event </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Access later restricted to event organisers </li></ul></ul>Web 2.0 Many aspects of Web site curation are to do with implementing such best practices, rather than implementing technical solutions See JISC PoWR blog post Possible Solutions
  38. 38. Case Study 2a: Blog Migration <ul><li>How might you migrate the contents of a blog (e.g. you’re leaving college)? </li></ul><ul><li>This question was raised by Casey Leaver, shortly before leaving Warwick University </li></ul>Web 2.0 Possible Solutions
  39. 39. Case Study 2a: Blog Migration <ul><li>She migrated her blog from blogs at Warwick Univ to Wordpress </li></ul>Web 2.0 Note, though, that not all data was transferred (e.g. title, but not contents) so there’s a need to check transfer mechanisms Possible Solutions
  40. 40. Case Study 2b: The Individual’s Blog (1) <ul><li>Auricle blog: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Launched Jan 2004 by head of e-learning team, Bath </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>High profile & public visibility by early adopter & evangelist </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Today: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>It’s gone </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Lost after evangelist left, new staff arrive, new priorities, … </li></ul></ul>Possible Solutions
  41. 41. Case Study 2b: The Individual’s Blog (2) <ul><li>Auricle reborn: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Further Google revealed the blog has been reborn </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>New domain (www.auricle.org/) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>New engine (Wordpress) & look and feel (but old engine still available) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>New content being added </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Old content still accessible </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Preservation is helped by: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Continued access </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Motivated & skilled owners </li></ul></ul>Possible Solutions
  42. 42. Case Study 3: Reusing Data <ul><li>Blog post in Facebook. Possible concerns: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>It’s not sustainable </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>You’ve given ownership to Facebook </li></ul></ul>Web 2.0 <ul><li>Response: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>The post is managed in WordPress; Fb displays copy (to new audience) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Fb don’t claim ownership – they claim rights to make money </li></ul></ul><ul><li>It’s not the service, it’s how you use the service </li></ul>Possible Solutions
  43. 43. Case Study 4: Disposable Data <ul><li>Twitter – example of a micro-blogging application </li></ul><ul><li>Facebook status messages is another related example </li></ul>Web 2.0 <ul><li>Issues: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Will Twitter be sustain-able over a long period? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>What will happen to the data? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>What about the IPR for ‘tweets’? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>What about institutional uses? </li></ul></ul>Possible Solutions
  44. 44. Case Study 4: Disposable Data <ul><li>Many twitterers regard their tweets as disposal </li></ul><ul><li>I tend to use Twitter as a ‘virtual water cooler’ – sharing gossip, jokes and occasional work-related information with (mainly) people I know </li></ul><ul><li>And I exploited Twitter’s free delivery of SMS messages when it was available in the UK </li></ul>Web 2.0 You could make use of clients which manage your tweets (e.g. treat like email) But you should develop your policies first, prior to exploring technologies Possible Solutions
  45. 45. Case Study 4: Disposable Data <ul><li>Skype (or your preferred VoIP application) are growing in popularity </li></ul>Web 2.0 <ul><li>Issues: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Is the digital data (the call) preserved? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>What about the video and the IM chats? </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Possible responses: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Am I bovvered? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>I didn’t bother with analogue phones, why should I worry now? </li></ul></ul>Possible Solutions
  46. 46. Case Study 5: Slideshare <ul><li>What happens to your slides if Slideshare disappears? </li></ul><ul><li>Recommended approach: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Master copy held on managed environment </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Info on master on title slide and metadata </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>CC licence & download available – many copies </li></ul></ul>Possible Solutions benefits management KEY
  47. 47. The Amplified Conference <ul><li>Amplified conferences provide opportunities to explore risk assessment / management approaches: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Sharing slides (in advance): will people listen? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Live broadcasting : who is listening; should I be cautious? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Recordings of audio / video : what if I look terrible; sound terrible; make mistakes? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>The back channel : what if people ask difficult questions; irrelevant questions; …? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Talking (and sharing) photos : what about privacy; data protection; …? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>How’s it funded? There are cost implications </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Problems : What if things go wrong? Things can go wrong! </li></ul></ul>Possible Solutions “ Using Networked Technologies To Support Conferences ”, Kelly, Shabajee and Tonkin, EUNIS 2005 proposed an AUP framework
  48. 48. Applying Risks Generally <ul><li>Web 2.0 </li></ul><ul><ul><li>May fail (and some have failed) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>May be mission critical </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Therefore: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>We shouldn’t use </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>We should develop / deploy services within the organisation </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Then we’ll be safe </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Banks (1.0) </li></ul><ul><ul><li>May fail (and some have failed) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Are mission critical </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Therefore: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>We shouldn’t use </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>We should manage our money ourselves </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Then we’ll be safe </li></ul></ul><ul><li>There are risks in just doing things in-house: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Risks of lagging behind; risks in changes to in-house resources & priorities; risks imposed by external funders; risks in lack of interest by our users; risks that staff will leave; … </li></ul></ul>Possible Solutions
  49. 49. But Who Takes the Risks? <ul><li>We’ve done risk-taking previously e.g. assessing OPAC vendors; assessing open source software; ... </li></ul><ul><li>But now: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>No formal contractual agreements </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Services registered by individuals </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Possible strategies: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Top-down approach: services must be approved </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Laissez faire approach: anything goes </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Flexible approaches: </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Blog author should make mangers aware (cf BBC) </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Departmental risk audits of use of 3 rd party services </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Sharing of risks </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>… </li></ul></ul></ul>Possible Solutions
  50. 50. Conclusions <ul><li>To conclude: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Web 2.0 and Library 2.0 can deliver tangible benefits </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>But there are risks </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>And there are risks in doing nothing or sticking with existing approaches </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>The risks need to be assessed </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>The risks need to be managed </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Sharing the risk assessment and risk management strategies fits in with the Web 2.0 philosophy </li></ul></ul>
  51. 51. Questions <ul><li>Any questions </li></ul>

×