Participation by design in Library 2.0 (pt. 2)

In the last post I discussed what I see as a need for libraries to internalize Web 2.0 applications into their own online systems. I was introduced to a few tools by Alicia that gave me a glimpse of some of the creative work being done in library 2.0: The Social OPAC, an ‘open source social discovery platform for bibliographic data’, Springshare LibGuides, in which libraries share knowledge and content online, and LibraryThing, an online book club that’s almost comparable to a Last.fm but for books!

In this post I’m relating those ideas to “Confronting the Challenges
of Participatory Culture: Media Education for the 21st Century,” a white paper by Henry Jenkins, Katie Clinton, Ravi Purushotma, Alice Robison and Margaret Weigel, and published by the Macarthur Foundation.

As the tools mentioned above indicate, participatory culture has also reached libraries and allowed people throughout the world to contribute to library 2.0 projects. On the way to making these tools more widespread throughout library websites librarians can engage in the same participatory culture that has driven the success of library 2.0 and other online tools.

The Ubuntu community is a good example of how a geographically disperse group of individuals with varying levels of skill and participation can contribute to a greater project, often out of sheer curiosity and dedication (Jenkins refers to these skill- and knowledge-nurturing environments as “affinity spaces”).

The most important factors are communication and participation, which provide support and instruction to those who want to use the product but do not have the complete skill set to impliment or develop it by themselves. The key idea from Jenkins is that “not every member must contribute” for progress to be made. Or, to elaborate, not every member must contribute equal time, energy or skills.

Lately I have seen a few cases in which libraries initially plan their websites, but outsource the development to third parties. While this may prove cost-effective in the short term, I am concerned that the future of library websites will be compromised by a lack of community development and skill building within the libraries themselves, especially when young and emerging library staff lose the opportunity to engage with the systems directly.

The reason I think it is worthwhile for libraries to integrate 2.0 software more deeply within their online systems, rather than rely on third parties for both development and hosting, is because the library staff can take ownership and develop their websites in a comprehensive and continuous way while passing their knowledge on to their colleagues and patrons. This develops the online library world as an affinity space for librarians and patrons.

The tools mentioned above each have significant uses for libraries, and could be internalized to varying degrees directly into library websites. This is not to diminish their use as stand-alone applications, but rather to give patrons the opportunity to engage with these tools within their local context, with or without any previous awareness. A hands-on approach to social software could go miles to connect patrons directly with library 2.0 applications.