Bill's Library Blog

TLC 2.0 / Web 2.0 / 23 Things Course: Wrapup

2009-10-13T12:48:00.000-07:00

As yet, none of the web tools I've learned about in this course have significantly changed how I work or what I see as my work goals. What I learned was interesting for the most part, but except for blogs, RSS feeds and YouTube, so far I haven't found the need for any significant use for any of the other tools, even those which have a potential use, like Library Thing and web-based applications (WPA).

Although theoretically useful these web tools have not yet been of any practical use to me yet. Perhaps this will change with time. I can especially see using WPA more since the future of software technology for basic office applications seems to be making it available on the web rather than desktop access. Facebook also looks like it has a lot of potential for the workplace.

I would recommend this course to others as a good introduction to these web technologies. The only criticism I have is that some of the information presented was outdated (the latest updates for most of the material presented on the 23 things page were in 2007). I sometimes had to find my own study materials. Overall though, it was a good course, and I would take similar courses using this method again.

Facebook: My First Look

2009-10-13T12:43:00.000-07:00

An interesting technology with a lot of potential in the workplace. So far, I've only scratched the surface of this site, so I can't say how it will effect my work, but from what I've read about the uses of Facebook, it looks promising.

Podcasts

2009-10-08T14:10:00.000-07:00

An interesting technology, but thus far one that I've never had much use or need for. Print feeds are more to my liking, and they do not require headphones, whose use at work has the effect of isolating oneshelf from one's surroundings.

RSS podcast feed link: http://www.npr.org/templates/rss/podlayer.php?id=5500502

Web Video Searching & Sharing

2009-08-27T12:20:00.000-07:00

Of all the web 2.0 technologies I’ve studied, so far video searching and sharing websites have proven to be one of the most useful in library work. I’ve been using youtube and google video for some time now. It’s a interesting source for personal entertainment (I like the history video clips), but it’s also a good source of information for the reference librarian, if one is careful. For example, if patrons need video sources for a subject for which no conventional video formats (vhs, dvd) are available, youtube or google video may be adequate substitute sources. These sources can also provide tutorial/instructional video material, but care is needed when determining the quality/authority of the video source.

Comments on Some Award-Winning Web 2.0 Sites

2009-08-11T10:21:00.000-07:00

The widget, or small application web 2.0 sites, looked interesting, but like many of these kind of web 2.0 sites, they lack sufficient organization for practical library use (or any use, for that matter). What's needed is a website that permits effective access to the type of widget that's needed. Using a search engine usually isn't very efficient.

Some of the other sites looked more useful. In particular, I liked the homepage creation sites and the book management sites.

Web Productivity Application Software

2009-06-29T14:06:00.000-07:00

The following was pasted from my first Zoho Writer document (since I couldn't post it directly here because either the software has bugs in it or the instructions given were incorrect).

First zoho writer document. The interface doesn't seem too bad--seems easy to use. The toolbar is similar to MS Word's. The function categories (the line of drop down menus directly above the toolbar) isn't too bad either. Some of the functions are repeated from the toolbar. Zoho Writer is more sophisticated than notepad or wordpad, but compared to most word processing programs, it's pretty much plain vanilla.

There are some significant word processing features missing from Zoho Writer and some bugs as well. There are no tab functions. The Zoho writer's forum says that this omission will be rectified in the future. And as noted above, I wasn't able to post this document to my blog using the directions given. I keep getting a "Can't post to blog: username or password may be incorrect, " even though the username and password I enter are correct.

Oh well. I guess you can't expect too much for something that's free. Which is one of the criticisms I have with these sites: they aren't as good as desktop purchased software. Which brings up another point: I wonder how long these web application programs will remain free of charge? The ones that succeed (presumably because they're easy to use and have a lot of features) will probably turn into fee-based sites, and there will pass one of the key advantages to this 2.0 technology.

I tried out Google Doc word processor, with similar results. I guess I won't be abandoning MS Word anytime soon.

What About Wikis

2009-06-23T12:40:00.000-07:00

Wikis show a lot of potential for collaborative authoring, sharing information and coordinating activities. The key factors in the creation and use of wikis:
1. What is the wiki for? What is its purpose, why is there a need for it? This must be carefully thought out.
2. Who is the wiki for? Who is going to use it, and who is going to be allowed to edit it? These questions will be largely determined by question 1.

Wikis, like some of the 23 things in web 2.0, are fine and useful, but I doubt I'll be creating a wiki or even editing one anytime soon; so far it is of not much inmediate use, beyond viewing.

Subject guides, community guides, and internal library wikis seem to be of the most practical use, the key factor being the ease of creating and editing wikis.

Library 2.0: The Jury's Still Out

2009-06-17T14:56:00.000-07:00

My impression to date is that this chatter about library 2.0 (the use of web 2.0 technology in libraries) seems to be over-hyped and premature. I don’t know one librarian who uses any of this technology in their library work on anything like a regular basis, if at all. Even people I know who have taken the 23 things course say this. I personally have not used any of the web 2.0 technology I’ve learned thus far: I’ve seen no need for it. There are also practical considerations to take into account when talking about library 2.0. For example, who’s going to pay for all of this? Libraries have almost always gotten the short end of the budget stick, but especially in these tough economics times, with layoffs in many libraries a real possibility, how are libraries going to pay for training, for this “continuous change”, as Rich Anderson mentioned in his “Away From the Icebergs” article? In addition, none of the library 2.0 pundits have considered the disadvantages of electronic information—it’s costs, scope, etc. There are still very real advantages to print-based information, especially in certain subjects. In short, I think the computer geeks in librarian’s clothing are once again jumping the gun. The jury’s still out on library 2.0.

Thoughts on Library 2.0

2009-06-01T16:22:00.000-07:00

I'm a bit more than halfway through the TLC 2.0 course on web 2.0 technology, and so far, I'm not impressed.

Some questions to ponder about the new technology and libraries (in particular, questions in reaction to the articles I've been reading about this):

How are libraries going to pay for all this?
Is "everything" available on the web?
What about the quality of the information found on the web? Who vets it?
Who's in on the discussion about this so-called library 2.0? Is it just the techies, or are other views represented? If it's just the geek librarians, I'm wondering how objective this discussion is. Usually when only one group talks about something, especially if concerns the future, that group's predictions are usually wrong.

Technorati: Useful in Reference Librarianship?

2009-06-01T12:00:00.000-07:00

I've studied Technorati.com for a while, and so far I’m not terribly impressed. The help and FAQ pages were unavailable when I tried to access them, and I wasn't impressed by site's design. As I studied the site a question kept croppingup: is the site a good way to find "good" blogs--that is, blogs that offer sound, authoritative information on the desired subject? Searching for blogs based on their popularity may be fine for recreational purposes, but what about serious research? Tags present another problem: using keywords is not always the best way to organize and search for information (especially when the tags can be assigned by anyone). Anyone who's used a OPAC long enough knows this.

A more significant problem for me is that I don’t have much use for blogs in my work as a reference librarian. It’s a question of the nature of blogs—are they, generally speaking, good sources of information? I'm not convinced they are. I think, like too much of the web, most blogs are more about the person or persons writing them and their opinions than they are about offering authoritative information on a subject. It's just another example of the lack of a effective means of vetting information put on the web. A lot of people pooh, pooh this idea, saying it's part of the old, stifling and undemocratic way of disseminating information. The web is more democratic and open, they say, because it allows just about anyone to create their own websites or blogs to communicate their ideas and creations without having to sell them to a publishing house (the "old" way).

But is something better just because it's "new?" The Edsel was once new. So was New Coke. And if the web is a more open and democratic way for people to communicate and present their creations and ideas, these very virtues, which make so easy for practically anyone to create their own blogs and web pages, have also resulted in a exponentially growing mass of web content that is becoming increasingly unmanageable from an organizational view, never mind vetting or filitering the content. In short, the web, because of it's size and growth, is becoming more and more difficult to use to find sound information. The "old" ways may present a slower and more difficult way to communicate one's views, but at least they work well.

First Look at delicious

2009-05-15T08:57:00.000-07:00

Thus far, I’m not terribly impressed with delicious. Beyond using it to manage one's bookmark collection, it’s not as useful as its makers claim.

The site is not well-designed: the help, FAQ sections need work—more detailed explanations (the use of graphics here would help). Some important rules of use are not explained. For example, it’s not mentioned (at least anywhere I looked) that to add tags of more than one word, the words must run together (eg: "move reviews" must entered as "moviereviews").

The usefulness of the site's tag search feature to search for information on the web is questionable; I tried several searches, but the list of results were often a flood, a mismash of blogs and websites of questionable worth. Especially given the enormous size of the web and that anyone can create content on it, there truly needs to be some sort of filtering mechanism to evaluate and organized the tag search results into something that can be useful and time-saving; too many of web enthusiasts overlook the necessity of this.

Overall, aside from it's bookmark management capability, at present I wouldn't use delicious for serious research.

LibaryThing

2009-05-05T16:47:00.000-07:00

Exploring the web library catalog LibraryThing is thing#11 of 23. Basically, it allows users to create, maintain, and share their own book catalogs. So far, the site looks pretty good, and may even be useful. It seems a little too busy, though--a lot of little activities, widgets, services, features, etc.

URL for my catalog: http://www.librarything.com/catalog/wmthomson

Image Generators

2009-04-27T10:21:00.000-07:00

Example of an image generated image file:

"Dynamic Einstein Picture generator:" allows you to change the message on the chalkboard.

http://www.hetemeel.com/einsteinform.php

So far, I haven't found any website which allows you to search and find image generators to meet specific needs; at best there are websites with lists of links for these applets. Until there's these sites are organized for efficient access, I don't see them being of much more than trivial use.

Feeding Frenzy

2009-04-20T14:27:00.000-07:00

On first consideration, RSS seems like a good idea: technology that sends updates of your favorite news and blog sites to your, thus saving your the time of having to go to each site to check for updates. Fine, as far as it goes.
But over time, most people will undoubtedly accumulate so many feeds that they'll be spending as much or more time reading through them, drowning once more the morass of web drivel.

The cost of nuclear energy

2009-04-02T11:29:00.001-07:00

A little digression:

There's a lot of talk in the news media and on the web about the prospects of nuclear energy, in particular in how it may help reduce carbon emissions. Many people are advocating building more nuclear plants. Unfortunately, no one seems to be talking about the high costs and very real dangers of nuclear power, which, to me, negates whatever possible benefits this type of energy might possess.

Nuclear power plants are very costly to construct and operate. In addition, retired plants must be mothballed and monitored for many, many years to ensure the environment is safe from any possible contamination.

Also, the catastrophic effects of any accident are not worth the risks involved. Ask yourself: would you want a nuclear power station build in your area if a catastrophic, Chernobyl-level accident were possible, even if the possibility were very low?

There are much better solutions to our energy and environmental problems, much, much less expensive, and much, much safer. Nuclear energy is not necessary or worthwhile.

Getting My Feet Wet

2009-03-23T16:29:00.000-07:00

If it weren't a requirement for the Web 2.0 course I'm taking, I wouldn't be doing this. I've never had any need (burning or otherwise) to spill my guts or pontificate in cyberspace. There are God only knows how many billions of websites, blogs, etc. on the net, so why add to this overwhelming mass of usually confused, irrelevant babbling voices? But, since I'm here, I might as well spout off a little, if only to keep up my typing skills.

To begin with, I'm a reference librarian at regional library in a large metropolitan area. As for my attitude toward computer technology, I'm mostly in the print camp: I'm a book man. I've worked with computers since the days of punched cards and time-sharing and, I have no uncritical, mystic, romantic or worshipful attitudes about computers or the Internet--when it comes to computer technology, the Millennium has definitely NOT arrived. The technology has its advantages and disadvantages like any other; to love or hate it completely is to have a distorted view of it.

If I have any strong feeling about this technology, it's wariness: I'm suspicious of it, specifically of its potential for being put to bad uses-- censorship, invasion of privacy, increased government and corporate power and control over people's lives, etc. What's particularly of concern is how much easier it is to do these kinds things using this technology. Types of surveillance the KGB or George Orwell could not have dreamed of are now technologically and economically feasible. Just observe how webcams are sprouting up everywhere like mushrooms and how the software used for webcam surveillance purposes is growing in sophistication, gradually enabling computers to monitor these cameras without human supervision and tell me I'm paranoid.

For me, for the most part, computers and the web are just tools like the books and other print materials I use in my work, they've useful for some things, but not for others (books, however, usually aren't capable of driving you crazy). Like other technological innovations they will bring change, but what kind?

We'll see.