Final Reflections

I had great expectations when I enrolled for the 23 Things programme. I felt it was an excellent and timely opportunity for me to expand my knowledge of Web2.0 tools and somehow determine the extent to which they could be effectively used in a University library setting.

In order to better address my personal objectives, I explored each Thing introduced extensively and I felt that both the main and the additional tasks recommended helped me to use the newly acquired knowledge in a very effective manner. I also found the writing of each post on the blog to be a useful exercise since it permitted further opportunities for reflection on the benefits of each tool.

I arranged my favourite Web2.0 technologies into three groups:

• Google Reader, Delicious and Podcasts
• Flickr, Facebook and YouTube
• Google Docs and ThinkFree Office
  

The first group not only provided me with excellent new electronic resources but also allowed me to find them all in the same place. It has indeed been very convenient to log on to Google Reader and to find the latest posts from fellow 23 Things participants, from other Information Professionals’ blogs I am now following and also to listen to my favourite podcasts before downloading them to my iPod via iTunes. As an added advantage, it’s reassuring to know I am not missing any important information that has been made available. The second group of tools allowed me to learn more about some of the hot topics in Library and Information Science today such as the benefits and concerns associated with the implementation of Facebook Fan Pages or Groups in libraries, copyright issues and how the Law appears to be typically one step behind Technology. The third group simply consists of awesome Web2.0 tools!

Twitter, on the other hand, was my least favourite Thing. I am well aware of its popularity and I don’t dispute its entitlement to be included in the programme due to its potential as an effective communication tool by any means. However, I still feel that due to the high amount of useless information being tweeted every split second, it may not be the most reputable and reliable platform available to promote existing library services as well as to advertise new ones.

I am delighted I had the opportunity to accomplish the 23 Things programme and I feel that my original objectives have been mostly met. This was due to fact that Laura, Penny, Jane, Emma and Angela made this initiative possible in the first place, delivered clear and easy to follow step-by-step instructions every week and have also encouraged an active learning environment throughout the programme. I must take this opportunity to thank them all for their hard work and for making this whole experience highly enjoyable. I have now been asked to produce a report on the use of the Web2.0 tools that could be beneficial to the College Library in which I work to be read by the Fellow Librarian and the Librarian so we might be the next Oxford Library to join the Web2.0 directory. Watch this space!

Blogger Gadget and iGoogle Widget

The article "25 Great Blogger Widgets" introduced me to some of the gadgets available to add to the Blogger platform with the aim of enhancing communication between the blogger and his or her visitors. Although I thoroughly welcomed this opportunity, I guess it's fair to say that I didn't feel tempted to include more widgets than the ones recommended to accomplish Things 21 and 22 (as well as the additional tasks) to my Blooger nor to my iGoogle pages.

I can clearly see their appeal in general; it's very convenient to have standalone "programmes" that perform useful functions in the same place and at the same time. This is not only likely to save users' precious time but it also helps them to better manage and easily assimilate the information provided. However, I have to admit that personally I cannot see much point in adding some of them such as this one for example other than perhaps for entertainment purposes; which is also important, I guess...

This week, I have somewhat contributed to the 23 Things Oxford blog as well by adding a comment to the latest entry which I hope fellow participants will find it useful.

ThinkFree Office

Not only is ThinkFree Office compatible with Microsoft Office, it also reminds you of a Word document due to the familiar menus it provides. As suggested, I created a Note with the use of one of the available templates on offer and was also able to download it to my USB Flash drive.

Google Docs

This is a document I created using Google Docs and, as you can see, I formatted the text by using different font types, sizes, colours and also by making some of it bold. I finally shared the profound quote with a couple of fellow 23 Things participants.

I produced a form with three different types of questions (paragraph text, choose from a list and scale) and, after having chosen an appropriate theme, I e-mailed it to be completed to a few 23 Things participants.

Although I am aware of a lack of more sophisticated features to create text as well as of issues of dependency and privacy, this is simply awesome technology! The ability to produce and edit documents online, to access them anywhere (providing you have an internet connection, that is!) and the advantage of easy collaboration in real-time the service provides should never be underestimated.

Wikipedia

When I started my career in the field of Library and Information Science, I was introduced to the idea that Wikipedia was the Library Professional's worst enemy and I still occasionally notice this antipathy towards it. Although I acknowledge that some degree of animosity towards Wikipedia is justified due to questionable issues of reliability and accuracy, and also due to the fact that concensus appears to prevail over reputable credentials as a result of the nature of the site, I still use it on a fairly regular basis.

I am not ashamed of this type of information seeking behaviour of mine as I trust my ability to use the information I retrieve wisely and I often look at the list of references associated with the article. However, I have to admit that when I seek authoritative information on a particular subject, I don't even contemplate the possibility of having a very quick peek at Wikipedia...

Oxford Web 2.0 Wiki

The Oxford Web 2.0 Wiki is a fine example of how wikis can be effectively used to disseminate useful information amongst Information Professionals. It offered me the opportunity to learn more about specific features of some Web 2.0 tools and I found the advice given on how to implement some of them particularly useful. I enjoyed reading the impressions felt by the Librarians whose libraries have embraced some of the Web 2.0 tools which can be found under the Oxford Case Studies menu.

I have also contributed to the expansion of the Oxford Web 2.0 Wiki site by editing the page “Bibliography & useful links” and by adding a link to the article I wrote about Facebook on my 23 Things blog.

Twitter

As you can see, I am now in the “real-time information network” sphere. I have tweeted, retweeted, deleted and replied to tweets, used hashtags, and finally learned a whole new language in the process!

It’s kind of interesting to read what people are saying about particular topics; this can easily be done from the homepage without having to sign in. I decided to follow a couple of Oxford libraries on Twitter and, thanks to the services provide by TweepML and wefollow, I am also following a few librarians whose interests in particular areas of Librarianship appear to be very similar to mine. Unfortunately no one is following me yet which has prevented me from sending a direct message as you can only do that to one of your followers.

There is no doubt that Twitter has become very popular and I can understand how it has been regarded as a powerful tool for libraries to use in order to promote their services and strengthen relationships with their readers. However, since it appears that such a great amount of worthless information is tweeted, I wonder whether Twitter's reputation as an effective library tool is being damaged and the situation is aggravated by the fact that there are more reliable online means to address the same purposes available.

LinkedIn

I signed up for LinkedIn and explored some of its features. It seems to be a useful website that connects friends and colleagues as well as a powerful resource to raise our profile within the professional community. In addition, since the number of its members worldwide is vast and is still rapidly increasing, it can also be used as a powerful professional development tool as we can have difficult questions answered by leading experts in the field.

LinkedIn claims to be the world’s largest professional network and our profile can not only be found on the website but it can also be discovered through search engines searches so this may be our opportunity to be headhunted!

Facebook

Facebook has always been enormously popular with students. As a result, it’s not surprising that some Academic Librarians have expressed a keen interest in embracing it as it was perceived to be an effective platform to better engage with their target audience. Since November 2007, the dream of sharing the most prominent social networking website came true as Facebook allowed the creation of Fan Pages which were specifically designed to meet the needs of businesses and organisations. Information Professionals could finally have a Facebook presence and take full advantage of its features with the aim of enticing the highest number of students to become their fans and to be part of the library online community.

Facebook Fan Pages (or Groups, for the matter) are easy, relatively quick and free to create. Furthermore they can be used as an effective marketing strategy and a tool for gathering students’ feedback, as they may include:

• Basic information such as the library’s address or opening hours
  

• Detailed information such as the library’s main subjects or maps of reading rooms
  

• Extensive information such as historical facts of the institution
  

• A space called “wall” where messages can be posted by the site’s administrator(s) and the fans.
  

• Search applications that have been developed to be used in Facebook such as JSTOR or COPAC search boxes
  

• Blogs (via RSS feeds for example)
  

• Advertisements for new acquisitions (possibly via RSS feeds from LibraryThing)
  

• Advertisements for new and existing user-focused library services
  

• Video tours and photographs
  

• Discussion boards
  

• Useful external links
  

• Updates that can be sent to fans such as changes in opening hours, promotion of events or notification of new resources

Whereas it is arguable that such features may be advantageous for everyone concerned, the involvement of libraries with Facebook has been rather controversial due to four main concerns:

• Since Facebook was originally created for students to use mainly for recreational purposes, are libraries simply encroaching upon a space in which they wouldn’t be welcomed? It is possible that this move may be interpreted as an invasion of an online space which had already been previously claimed; however, since libraries do not normally adopt an aggressive marketing approach (contrary to some intrusive ads on Facebook), this argument should perhaps be dismissed.
  

• If fair criticism is posted on the “wall”, libraries can hopefully act positively on it but what would be the best course of action to take when unfair criticism or even inappropriate comments are posted and made public? It seems to me that the deletion of unwelcome feedback should not be contemplated as such an action would compromise the very purpose of having a Facebook presence to enhance communication in the first place.
  

• How can the success of such initiatives be accurately measured? After having looked at some Facebook Fan Pages of Oxford libraries and noticing the significant number of fans some of them have, I questioned how many of those are actually regular visitors to the site. Unfortunately, judging by the limited number of contributions posted on the “wall”, they don’t appear to be a very proactive group which validates to a certain extent the claim that students are hesitant towards using Facebook for academic purposes (Chu and Meulemans, 2008). I wonder therefore if the time spent by library staff on creating and updating the site on a regular basis in order to prevent it from appearing dormant or even abandoned is worthwhile. Perhaps information professionals whose libraries are already on Facebook can shed some light on this matter by disseminating the average of daily page views according to the statistics on Facebook Insights.
  

• Is Facebook just another passing technological fad? If Facebook Pages or Groups will no longer be allowed or if its popularity with students declines considerably or even if Facebook ceases to exist altogether in the near future, it may prove that the investment of time in the library’s presence may not have been a sensible move after all…

Having said that, Facebook appears to be here to stay and I am well aware of the numerous success stories as a result of its implementation in University library settings (see Alcock, 2009; Hendrix et al., 2009; Widdows, 2009), one of those clearly stating that “[a] Facebook presence is much more than a presence in Facebook” (Widdows, 2009, p. 9). However, although the physical library building has long been established and has traditionally been regarded as the heart of the campus, I am still left questioning whether the provision of library services fits comfortably into online social networks.

Bibliography:

• ALCOCK, J., 2009. Using Facebook Pages to Reach Users: The Experiences of Wolverhampton. ALISS Quarterly, 4(2), 2-6.

• CHU, M. and MEULEMANS, Y.N., 2008. The problems and potential of MySpace and Facebook usage in academic libraries. Internet Reference Services Quarterly, 13(1), 69-85.

• HENDRIX, D., CHIARELLA, D., HASMAN, L., MURPHY, S. and ZAFRON, M.L., 2009. Use of Facebook in Academic Health Sciences Libraries. Journal of the Medical Library Association (JMLA), 97(1), 44-47.

• WIDDOWS, K., 2009. In Your Facebook, Not in Your Face. ALISS Quarterly, 4(2), 7-10.