Libraries vs collaboration
by jeff68 ~ July 31st, 2010. Filed under: Uncategorized.
As I watched this video, the first thing that came to mind was, ‘Oh, geez, I’d really like to do my part of our wiki project over again.’ I assembled all these points related to planning, consultation, articulating goals etc.- that is, all the stuff that a typical public library has had to do to roll out of a new project since time began. But this video makes clear that this sort of slow plodding, planned and methodical approach is precisely what Web 2.0 has over institutions. It’s like I want to have Web 2.0 platforms to encourage collaboration, but I want to keep the coordination costs (time for planning, consultation with stakeholders..) associated with institutions. That just seems plain dumb. But, in my defence, there it is in the literature.
That is not to say that planning is a bad thing. Marketing the new tool is a great idea. But these technologies allow (or demand) thinking on one’s feet. So, where is the value of strictly articulating the goal of a new service? Because, the goals might necessarily change because of how the service is actually being used. And, platforms like FB are well-suited to handling a number of goals, so why dismiss possible uses from the outset? The point might be to jump into the pool feet-first. Get on FB- do a bit of marketing and a bit of instruction. Be flexible and see what works.
This is one reason that, from my perspective, libraries are still making the journey, in Shirkey‘s terms, from institution as obstacle to enabler of collaboration. At least, from the standpoint of collections this still seems to be the case. Online platforms like flickr can exploit that long tail, bringing together producers of content in a way that libraries cannot yet do because libraries are stil repositories of ‘properly published’ material, even if that material is online. Are libraries doing a good job of using social media to assemble contributions from diverse contributors within their communities (however these are defined, geographically or otherwise)? Not having any experience working in libraries, I can’t answer that. Through coursework, I have seen blogs and wikis set up by libraries to bring people together to ‘share their stories’ as was noted in our module 3 ‘limits’ discussion. But it seems to me that libraries are institutions that still seem most interested in making excessible material that has been created for and published by institutions and deemed popular by institutions. Obviously there is still a place for this model- but is it not shrinking? Shirkey points out that the metaphor of journalist does not apply to how information is being created and shared in social media. So does the metaphor of the library apply to what is happening now? If everyone comes to know that Wikipedia is just as ‘good’ as the Encyclopedia Britannica, whither the library? Just like journailsm, libraries have established communities built up over time that will ensure they survive, but they will also continue to struggle to stay relevant in the Web 2.0 world.
July 31st, 2010 at 6:03 pm
I think you hit the nail on the head when you note that libraries are constrained by traditionally published material. Should libraries enter the game as content creators? I’m game.
August 1st, 2010 at 8:45 am
@Jon, not only should libraries enter the game as content creators (and they have as many university librarians are involved in the development of digital repositories which are searchable online via Gooble, check out UBC’s Information Repository cIRcle: http://circle.ubc.ca/), but users should be part of creating that content as well. This could be in the form of historical or event photographs, political podcasts & reflections, grey literature etc… This is why places like the Library of Congress are so interested in buying up Twitter’s archived tweets. I would like to argue though that one of the things that does make libraries collections interesting is specifically that there are carefully culled collections which we don’t see on the internet. Although there may be some bias by the people who created these collections, it does reflect to a certain extent the time period in which it was created, basically it could be considered culturally influenced. You don’t see much of this on the internet where everything is “loose” and has to be recombined for every random search, and with user-generated tagging with too much (or not enough) granularity it may lack in cohesion. What I would like to see is for the carefully culled collections to continue and for them to be combined and recombined with random searches. Basically, I want to see the best of both worlds to be combined and for the virtual walls to be disolved in favour of better “discoverability”. To me this is the best collaboration of all, and that librarians “should” rule the internet.
August 1st, 2010 at 9:24 am
The emergence of Google Editions coincides with the release of this new book on collaborative consumption – http://collaborativeconsumption.com/ (and its articulation of the sharing trend). Seems to suggest that duplicating the costs of popular materials (and multiple copies) in libraries is going to be closely examined in the years to come.
Jeffery, your points about revisiting the wiki assignment are well-taken. I didn’t want to prescribe too much in assignment #1, and I am glad to see you reflecting on what worked or didn’t.
August 6th, 2010 at 8:53 pm
Since my original rather inarticulate rant, I have noted that I am not the only (librarian (to-be?) who is unsure whether to take the carefully planned or dive-right-in approach: See http://www.pemmymac.com/contentcreation/2010/07/ready-set-wait-do-you-have-a-plan/