CILIP 2.0 Council Open Session

cilip2_full by Dave and Bry, on Flickr

I've been thinking about the CILIP 2.0 Council Open Session yesterday. First off, it was fascinating for me to attend an event like this on Twitter. Although I've followed events from hashtags before, as a relatively new Twitterer, never anything on this scale. The tools that were recommended (Twitterfall and Tweetdeck) worked well for me, although at times there was a bit of lag from Twitterfall so I found myself reverting to Twitter Search occasionally.

I did get some sense of what was happening in the room and a number of Twitterers were very generous in describing what was going on (see @tomroper or @janeite for running commentaries or @daveyp's transcript of the #cilip2 tag for more info).

I've seen some criticism of the Twitter stream as being hard to follow and the thought's or ideas not being coherent, which is interesting in itself. Yes, it's a challenge to put complex ideas into 140 characters but I beleive there are coherent streams (or conversations) within the tag. Perhaps it has as much to do with the number of participants as anything. The more people you have in a group, the looser the conversations tend to get. At least Twitter allowed a large number of people to attend remotely and the stream is there to be analysed/ picked over now. I'm sure some interesting threads will emerge.

What did the day achieve though? Well, I didn't pick up on any hard action or proposals. I can't see that any actual decisions were made by the CILIP top brass. But then I'm not sure that was what the event was about. I get the sense that it was more about CILIP Council *listening* to it's members. This is something I've never heard of before and I really think CILIP Council deserve a big hats-off for hosting the event.

I'd like to see CILIP provide a strong lead in this space. Personally I think they've some catching up to do, but listening and finding out more with events like yesterday's is a very good start.

The event got me wondering: actually, what do I want from CILIP with regards to Web 2.0? Do I want them to leap on the latest hot Web2.0 app? Well, partly. I'd like to see them take more interest in the tools that members are using and, if there is significant demand, engage with their users on those tools. But I think using the latest/ coolest tools in the Web2.0 toybox is a bit misleading. Web2.0, for me, is not about the specific applications it's more a way of being. Being open, encouraging participation, encouraging user generated content, concepts like creative commons etc. The big question for me really is not whether or not CILIP have an "official" Twitter account (although that would be nice!) but whether they are prepared to use Web2.0 to be more open and to provide a place for librarians to openly share their ideas and information.

By extension that means that we - the information profession - have to be more open in sharing our information and content. We have to contribute and get involved. Can we make CILIP2.0 a reality?

Useful Links Pages Using Social Bookmarking - Potential Banana Skins

So the Useful Links page using Social Bookmarking was finally finished. Or so I thought. The idea was fairly simple: use a Social Bookmarking tool to allow users to tag web sites to add to the library's "Useful Links" page. The information flow basically happens like this:

1) User finds useful website.

2) User bookmarks web site in social bookmarking application using library tag.

3) Social bookmarking application adds bookmark to feed (in this case ATOM).

4) Magpie RSS aggregates feeds and parses them to html.

5) Library web site displays links on "Useful Resources" page.

In practice though, I came across a few problems so I thought now might be a good time to highlight some of the pitfalls and document my solution!

Pitfall #1 - The Accidental Tag

In my case, I came up with about 10 different tags to allow the Useful Resources to be sorted into categories (e.g. Databases, Libraries etc). Each category has its own distinctive tag (e.g. hurlibdat, hurliblib). The tags have to be fairly unique as otherwise you'd end up with a load of stuff you don't really want.

Say for example you used a generic tag like 'magazine'. It's not beyond the realms of imagination that sooner or later somebody would tag the Playboy website with 'magazine' and it would end up on your useful resources page. They probably weren't intending to introduce soft porn to your library users but the effect is the same.

Lesson #1 - Library link to Playboy Magazine = Grumpy users and complaints! Use tags that nobody is likely to accidentally tag items with!

But what if it's no accident? This brings me to...

Pitfall #2 - Intentional vandalism

Ok so it's not very 'Web2.0' what with extreme trust and all that, but if you're putting your name to a page you have to be able to ensure that the links on it are of a certain quality. So what can you do to stop people intentionally tagging inappropriate content? Well, nothing really. What you can do is set out guidance on what resources are appropriate and point out the fact that, in social bookmarking, everybody knows who's tagged what - if you vandalise there will be comeback!

Lesson #2 - Give users clear guidance on how to tag and which kinds of resources are appropriate.

I actually found a very similar site on our Intranet and revised the guidance for the library page.

Despite this it occurred to me that, if someone really wants to add inappropriate links, there is really very little I can do to stop them. Or is there? More on that later!

Pitfall #3 - How to fix broken links

This one only occurred to me after I finished the page and discovered, to my horror, that one of the linked sites had already vanished. So. I found a new link for the site and edited my bookmark in the social bookmarking tool to point to fix the link. Then it hit me. How can I fix broken links from users when I can't edit their bookmarks? ACK!

The Solution to ALL My Problems...

...is actually very simple. Moderation. Although I was initially against this I've come to the conclusion that, to avoid a page full of broken links six months down the line I need to own the bookmarks that feed the useful links page.

The mechanism to do this had me stumped for a while but the solution is actually fairly easy.

I need to create one tag for users to bookmark sites they think will be useful to the library. I monitor the feed for that tag and create my own bookmark (using a different tag) any time a user tags a new page. The Useful Resources page aggregates my tags rather than the users', allowing me to moderate and organise the content.

This actually improves all three problems.

For pitfall #1, the tags that I use can be so obscure that nobody could possibly add resources by accident. Also, just having one simple tag for library users is alot easier for them - they don't have to categorize the resource or remember 10 different, obscure tags for different categories.

For pitfall #2 - I'm now able to filter out any sites that aren't appropriate just by not bookmarking them!

For pitfall #3 - I own the bookmarks feeding the Useful Links page so I'll be able to edit or delete broken links. This should be really easy, just schedule in a review of the page every six months or so and edit the bookmarks of any broken links.

Shimple! If only I'd of thought of it sooner. Ah well, we live and learn and at least it shouldn't be too hard to fix.

Ambient Findability : What we find changes who we become (book review)

This is a cross-posting of my review on librarything...

This is the book that has most influenced my thinking about my profession. Probably ever. I've sort of been coming to see books as boundary objects - as objects that connect people or concepts (like on this site) - for a while now and think that libraries need to make much more of the social networking power of books. This book gave me some vocabulary for these concepts but (although it's written by a librarian and I read it as a librarian) this is much more than a library book. It basically explains a number of concepts that are all converging to create a situation where objects (like books), people, anything, will be ambiently findable. The findability will be built in. A number of concepts are explained. Ubiquitous computing (the techie side of things); the long-tail (the economic forces that will drive these developments); spimes (objects that have precise history, that can be precisely tracked in time and space); and boundary objects (objects that sit on the boundary between two concepts). I'll be following up on some of the books referenced in this later to try and get a better understanding but I think this is the one that really pulls everything together. The author has a really good view of where these concepts are coming together and what the implications are. Brilliant.

How To Use Web 2.0 In Your Library (book review)

This is a cross-posting from my review on librarything...

This one was ok but not really what I was expecting. The book's starts off with a definition of Web 2.0 (including the ubiquitous Tim O'Reilly definition) and then goes on to introduce different forms of social software. Each chapter is well furnished with links and examples and the book's well laid out but somehow it didn't quite hit the spot for me. I think I would have preferred less in the way of links and examples and more along the lines of how, conceptually you can use these tools in the library. Maybe more assessment of potential benefits to users etc. There was also very little mention of the ethics of librarianship - something that I think is really important if libraries are going to enter this space. I guess I didn't really take any idea on what web 2.0 is from this book - that it's alot more than just blogging or uploading photos. The concept of extreme trust was mentioned in the first chapter but aside from that there was very little focus on the social phenomena that define web 2.0. Ok for sparking ideas but think carefully about implementing the ideas. Is Web 2.0 consistent with your libraries data protection policies and your duty of care to your users? That's not to say don't do Web 2.0 - it's great - just think about the issues involved as well as the techie side.

Web2.0 Evangelism

Never really thought of myself as an evangelist before but it seems my stint on the library conference call the other day has got at least two of the other libraries to start blogging new books (and at least a couple more are going to start blogging after they get legal advice on copyright). What's really cool is that the economics of marketing social software works in a completely different way. In traditional marketing I'd have been reluctant to encourage other similar ideas into the same forum because we'd then all be competing for the attention of the consumers. With blogging the opposite is true. I've already had hits from pages other librarians have posted - because of the social nature of the site (i.e. similar posts are linked together) - the more librarians I get posting, the more hits I'll get from their posts. Collaborating not competing.

Now, where's the Vanish? Must get the ketchup out of my white suit...

Web2.0 Backlash?

This was going to be a really positive post about having new books on their way and getting over this New Years malaise that's marked the start of 2008 but I just saw a couple of articles in the Gazette that I find really dissapointing. So I'm going to vent spleen on that instead! The first is on the front page and is titled "Social networking 'not for libraries'" and is about an OCLC report. The report surveyed 6000 members of the public in 6 developed countries and 400 "randomly selected US library directors" (does anyone else think this is a slightly odd sample?). Apparently, 60% did not see a role for libraries in developing social networks.

I've got a few problems with this:

a) The way people are socialising and interacting with each other (and organisations) is changing. Naturally, the public do not see a role for libraries in this trend but how many of the public really understand what libraries do? I don't mean to be patronising but the article cites a 15 year old who thinks that libraries are there to borrow books and occasionally use computers. I see libraries in a slightly different way - basically as places facilitating relationships between people and the information that they need. If libraries don't keep up with the latest ways in which people relate to each other (and information) then they will be dead in the water.

b) How many of the public realise that one of the biggest roles of libraries is in forming and maintaining strong communities. Social networking is all about this. Even if it is not the role of libraries to build social sites (and I would argue strongly that it is!) they should at least be participating in them. Sharing, collaboration and communication are common factors that link social networking and libraries at a fundamental level - common goals if you like.

c) ...and this is my biggest beef. How has this article and the related article on page 3 titled "Are these sites just hype?" (both of which are strongly negative towards the opportunities that social networking sites offer) made their way into the Gazette? Surely it is up to Cilip to provide balanced opinion to it's members. Yes there are negative aspects to social networking and pitfalls that librarians need to be aware of, but to suggest that a) they are a fad and the bubble will burst soon; and b) that libraries have no role in social networking is (IMHO) dangerous (although perhaps indicative of the attitudes that have got libraries and librarianship into the pickle that they are currently in).

I seem to remember these sort of arguments about the Internet in the 90's (ask anyone who works in a public library how busy they are when the Internet goes down).

Cilip Gazette - the next time you print a negative article, how about balancing it with an alternative viewpoint? If I want one sided tabloid journalism I can buy The Sun.

Rant over. Stay tuned for happy, happy, joy, joy.

Brainstorm Interlude

This is a brainstorm really. I've managed to lumber myself with doing a presentation on a conference call on the benefits of blogging. I've been having random thoughts on this for a while and now it's time to start to organise these. Bit of background. I've been doing a new books blog for 4 or 5 months now and have changed my opinion of web2.0 from reserved skepticism to avid evangelist. Here, in no particular order, are my pros and cons...

+'ves

1) It gets the message out there. The way the corporate blog works is that every time you post you go to the top of a list of recent posts on the front page. More and more people are hitting this page so if you post regularly you are going to get to a whole bunch of people who never knew you existed.

2) It makes you think about your stock - I've got the process fairly automated (basically the blog posts are cut and pasted from catalogue records with a bit of personal opinion thrown in if I feel strongly that it's a good book). However, I'm always aware that I'm selling these new books to a highly critical bunch of users. If a book doesn't cut the mustard it will be spotted and comments will be made. I've had to learn to justify the stock that I select and that's a good thing. It's reached the point now that when I'm preparing shortlists for acquisitions I often ask myself "Would I be comfortable blogging this book".

3) It's generated requests direct from the blog pages. This equals more issues and is GOOD FOR THE STATS.

4) People read the blog then walk to the library. This nearly knocked me off my chair the first time it happened. The aim of the blog (and other web2.0 stuff planned for this year) is to accept that folks are busy and can't always make it to the library. I saw blogging as one way to take new books to people's desktops... BUT there have been many occasions when people have seen a book and been driven to come over to the library and add their name to the paper waiting list (I know this because they tell me). Invariably they walk out with a different book while they are waiting for the new book to do it's time on display. This again is GOOD FOR THE STATS.

5) Social Bookmarking. My eyes have been opened to this a bit more just this week. I made a fairly idle comment speculating on ways to improve the information retrieval of user generated tags. One response was that the point of tags is not purely an information retrieval thing, it's a social thing. In and off itself. This has taken me a long time to grasp. One word of advice is to let go of librarian sensibilities - tags might not be the best for searching to find information but they rock when it comes to relating one piece of information (or person) to another. They also provide a simple way for end users to label their own information. Most of the hits (excluding direct hits from feedreaders) come from being featured on other blogs. I think this is down to meticulous tagging.

6) Even a specific blog (like one themed on new books) will raise the overall profile of the library. Pretty much any publicity is good publicity for libraries right now and if it shows that libraries are on the cutting edge of communicating information then that might help to challenge a few stereotypes.

7) Reading blogs is a good way to find out what others are interested in. In a corporate environment it helps you to find out: what people are working on, what they are interested in, what tools they are using (basically what information they need). Beware though - it's very easy to get distracted.

-'ves

1) You have to have a regular source of something to blog about. If you don't post for a while you'll still get hits (from searches on tags and people scrolling back through thier feedreaders) but you won't get nearly as many as if you're posting every day.

2) It takes time. I happen to think it's worth it but it does take time.

3) It can be addictive. Because you get feedback in the form of a count of the number of people hitting the pages and even comments from readers, it can be tempting to keep logging on to see what the response is. It takes a while to get disciplined about this. Like with email, it pays to manage your time blogging. Because you can manage a blog in relatively small chunks of time it is easy to fit around other tasks but it is also easy to get distracted (see 7 under +'ves!).

I'll edit this post as and when I think of anything else...