By Susan Smith Nash, Ph.D.
The fundamental premise of Web 2.0 — openness, interactivity, information-sharing, and networking — is fundamentally at odds with the old notion of library information, which was perceived by many users (for better or for worse) to be about:
- tight control of access (making sure it was equitable and predictable),
- veracity and reliability of data (peer-reviewed journals and monographs were most highly esteemed),
- "authority" (only people with proper levels of "authority" were considered competent enough to comment),
- and responsible use (citing and using properly, eschewing anything borrowed, reused, or reconfigured).
Instead of collapsing in an extended meltdown, most libraries have responded by embracing — to the degree that they are able to (at least at this point) — the new concept. It's very admirable, and makes one think of the early days of digitized texts, when libraries underwent a sea-change and started developing policies, procedures, and protocols for e-books, e-journals, and other digital assets.
For the e-learner, the road to the Web 2.0-influenced academic library is fraught with contradiction and double standards. While information sharing via wiki and collaborative sites is encouraged, even embraced in an enthusiasm that verges on hypomanic, professors regularly pronounce that Wikipedia is not a reliable source, and one should avoid citing it.
So, how far does one go in trusting collaborative information? When can one use web-derived open-access information, and when can one not? How does one know if and when a source of data is reliable?
Web 2.0 ideas and philosophies have profoundly influenced the way in which one might obtain and disseminate information. One might wait for the dust to settle down, but in reality, that's not likely to happen any time soon. After all, the web is in a state of "perpetual beta" and the very nature of technological change assures one that the instant that one might start feeling comfortable, is the moment that he or she should throw cold water on himself/herself and realize that the sense of comfort and competency simply means that one has fallen behind and has probably missed the spawning of at least one generation of innovation.
Before going any further, it is useful to clarify that there are no absolutes when it comes to Web 2.0. There are no standards and no tests. It's a concept and an ideal rather than a series of compliance measures. There are no fines or penalties for failure to adhere to the principles — in fact, most seem to embrace the notion of Web 2.0 as a way to say "collaborative and interactive web-based stuff" instead of static retrieval and transmission of information.
That said, the doors are open wide for alternative ways to obtain and share information. At the same time, there are new ways of assessing and pronouncing upon the ultimate fealty of data, information, images, etc. This is not to say that there are not hoaxes, and that one can trust every image one sees on the web. It's only to say that in an open environment, there are likely to be those who will attest to the credibility of a source, even as there will be those who will impugn the reliability of others. In an ideal world, this is democracy in action. It's a democracy of the educated, and a rather pointed critique of those who still cling to the notion that democracy means being held in the thrall of the least common denominator, and that "dumbed down" will prevail in such a climate. We see, quite quickly, that in a Web 2.0 environment, just the opposite is the case, and that experts (or exceedingly wily ideologues) begin to assume a leadership position — elected, as it were, by their peers in the web.
In a nutshell, the following Web 2.0-inflected and inspired repositories of data are changing the way that one can obtain and share high-quality information.
This is an amazing database. Granted, many of the citations lead to articles locked behind a subscription-only portal, but the fact that the search function turns up so many articles and monographs — in the open Web 2.0 environment — is gift enough.
It is amazing how many books are available in their entirety, allowing readers to download and to read the entire text. For the most part, however, the open access part of the book is limited. It gives the reader an idea of the book, but not everything. The reader can click to links that allow the purchase of the e-book or a hard copy. Readers can also provide reviews.
Findarticles.com, Pathfinder.com, Questia.com
Databases have open access, and in many cases, the full texts of the articles are available free. Granted, you have to click through a lot of ads, and it is not possible to download a pdf, but instead, one must print or save one html page at a time (tedious!) — but, you get what you pay for, right? The for-purchase versions tend to be pdfs.
Wikis
Wikipedia notwithstanding, which is probably the single most-quoted source in the history of the college essay, the idea of collaborative sharing and fact-checking is brilliant, and leads to very nice results. It's always necessary to point out to students that wikipedia (and wikis in general) are not desirable as sources because they are works in progress, and the presence of bias and incompleteness does not necessarily perturb anyone who is a stakeholder in wikipedia. As an open-access jumping-off point, it is unsurpassable. As unvarnished, unmediated truth … well … it leaves something to be desired. Caveat emptor.
Textbook companion sites
In a time of ever-escalating costs of textbooks, it's easy to demonize the publishers. However, before we bash, let's take a look at what they provide to the public and to those who purchase their textbooks. Have you actually taken a look at the digital assets provided by such publishers as Peason, Cengage (formerly Thomson Learning), McGraw-Hill, and all their imprints?? It is enough to make you catch your breath in awe. The companion sites tend to have activities (quizzes, flashcards, interactive maps), that look a lot like very cool mashups. In addition, they often have video and downloadable mp3 files which are perfect for mobile learning. Personally, I think that textbooks are underpriced, and they should cost a bit more. That said, I also believe that textbooks should come with CDs and DVDs in case of Internet access issues, and should be web-updated, with paper version updates / new editions coming once every three years rather than one or two.
Amazon.com
Amazon? you say… Surely you jest! No. I am quite serious. Have you taken a look at amazon lately? Have you read the new features - the author input, the author blogs, the reader reviews, the sales numbers, the exerpts and table of contents? Amazon.com embodies the spirit of Web 2.0 in a way that no one else does (at least at this point), and it is, frankly speaking, exhiliarating. I love it. The only problem, as far as I can tell, is that Amazon makes it entirely too easy to jump into impulse purchases, especially with their "one-click" options. I'm hooked.
There are numerous other Web 2.0 applications and services that have something to do with libraries and library resources. There is not enough time or space to go into all of them. However, I do hope that this overview has been helpful. If it has encouraged you to look at Web 2.0 in fresh ways, and has helped you become a more efficient and confident web researcher in your e-learning courses, that's wonderful. Don't give up.
REFERENCES AND USEFUL ARTICLES
Blyberg, John (2006) "Library 2.0 Web sites: Where to Begin"
www.blyberg.net/2006/03/12/library-20-Web sites-where-to-begin
Coombs, Karen (2007) "Building a Library Site on the Pillars of Web 2.0"
http://www.infotoday.com/cilmag/jan07/Coombs.shtml
Miller, Paul (2005) "Web 2.0 Building the New Library"
Ariadne 45 — www.ariadne.ac.uk/issue45/miller
O'Reilly, Tim (2005) "What is Web 2.0"
www.oreillynet.com/pub/a/oreilly/tim/news/2005/09/30/what-is-web-20.html
Library 2.0 Reading List
www.squidoo.com/library20