This is where the class blog posts will be updated. As you will soon find out under Unit 2, you will be creating a blog (unless you elect to use one you already created) and making a blog post. The area under “Our Blog Posts” will list the ten most recent blog posts from the class.
The entries you see below are from my previous semester when I took LIBR 246 – Information Tools and Technology: Web 2.0. I really enjoyed the class and recommend it. In some ways it is like a full class extension of Unit 2.
I hope everyone has a wonderful 2013!
I first posted on this subject in this blog almost two years ago: https://jeffslawlib.wordpress.com/2011/01/18/success-for-online-learning-and-team-interaction/
Reading my perspective then was really interesting. Since that time, I have been a part of several teams in the scholastic environment of SLIS. I personally found that teams tend to function better in a scholastic environment more so than a professional one. Usually I have found team members to be respectful enough to contribute and be prepared for their assigned contributions. Teams can be challenges at times, but understanding the principals of the presentations by Dr. Haycock and Enid Irwin will go a long ways in making sure that you are a great team player. The more great team players that exist on a team, the more successful the team. I have also noticed that where a team with great team players can really elevate other “less than ideal” team players to be more involved in the team.
The article by Tay, A. (2009). “Libraries and Crowdsourcing – 6 Examples.” Musings about Librarianship provides some real life examples of user-generated content in libraries. These included 1) tagging and correction newspaper articles for OCR errors; 2) tagging photos in Flickr; 3) rating, tagging, and contributing to user reviews of books; 4) contribution to FAQs; 5) Comments and suggestions; and 6) collaborative cataloguing.
The obvious risk in “crowdsourcing” is the inherent risk of user error in contribution. Sometimes the risks can be offset by the potential benefits. I believe the OCR case is a perfect example. It would take many, many hours for employees to go in and make edits. This empowers volunteer users to make corrections where the OCR made mistakes. The type of person who would go out of the way to make a correction is not the type of person who would purposely sabatouge the document through personal motives. Rather, the type of user to make corrections are the type who have interests in correct and accurate content. I would recommend that an employee to oversee the project, and if available, provide review of the corrections. Where a particular user is reliable, less oversight would be needed for that type of user.
Several libraries have wikis which allow user contribution, with oversight by a managing librarian. For instance, I worked on a wiki for Prof. Putnam – http://slisapps.sjsu.edu/wikis/faculty/putnam/index.php/LIS_Publications –
Which is designed to help anyone interested in publishing articles/papers in librarianship find sources to submit articles. A user has to register, but then they could provide edits with oversight in place. This type of crowdsourcing would seem to work well as the content can be generated by the user and the review could be performed by the manager, which takes significantly less time to review than generate.
Twitter Basics Screencast
This is my first attempt at creating a screencast – sorry for all the word stumbles.
I decided to review a library instructional video from Cornerstone University entitled Online Library Instruction – Section 3 — Basic eArticle Searching (see http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E6w24-xn0cU) The video starts out with a nice gentlemen giving a brief introduction about the video. He explains some of the differences between a popular magazine article and a peer review article. He then briefly goes over some basic Boolean operators to aid in the search. The video then displays a results list of search results and how to get click into a result or by using one of the shortcut icons. He points out filter as well as how to get the article if not available in full text. He also briefly goes over some of the subject guides. The video closes with another woman explaining that chat is available and reference email, in addition to phone questions.
Overall I thought the video was done well, but not exceptional. The narration was not necessarily the most inviting, but it was nice to have real faces that patrons would encounter at the library. The background music was very elevator-like, and gave kind of an interesting feel for the video. The incorporation of the screen cast was a nice feature to include. I thought they could have gone into a little more detail from how you get to the database, enter search terms, show filters more, then browse through results. Overall, though pretty nicely done.
I have looked over a few libraries who have a Pinterest page. I really liked Duke Libraries Pinterest page (http://pinterest.com/dukelibraries/ ). I really like how they have categories for the boards. They have 15 boards to date including different libraries located on campus in addition to various collections, events, and exhibits. The pins are of high quality and are pretty interesting. My suggestion would be to expand the use of Pinterest to include more pins in each of the respective categories. One thing I wish Pinterest would allow is to have a board within a board. This feature would greatly improve organization of the respective boards. In time, for instance, the Exhibits board would become overwhelmed with individual exhibits when an individual may only be interesting in browsing through a specific exhibit. This of course is not something the library can currently do, so the board they have use seem to work pretty well. I think this is a very good representation of how a library could use Pinterest in a nice format.
I think some of the considerations for libraries’ use of Pinterest include keeping up-to-date with new pins, new categories. I think it needs to be an ongoing feature where someone/some group(s) would have responsibility over so that it is current. More followers will likely be included if it is kept up-to-date, as opposed to random updates. Additionally, followers will likely be more engaging with current pin updates.
The issue of anonymous users in an online community is a tricky situation. I think there are arguments for both sides of the coin – why it is good to have anonymous users, and why there are risks associated with having anonymous users. Some of the benefits I see in having anonymous users is that the users are more likely to share their thoughts and feelings on particular points. Some anonymous users may feel like they will be discriminated against if their identity is revealed, so having candid feedback can be extremely valuable to an online community. On the other hand anonymous users do not have a reputation to protect so they face no potential ramifications to extreme anti-social or vicious behavior. I think we have all seen posts which a person would not likely say to another complete stranger. If enough of these individuals are present, it has the potential for the productive anonymous users from participating by posting candid, but still within social norms of being considerate. I think it is best to have at least a valid email associated with an user. Additionally, a moderator should have the ability to block users from participating/posting, as well as, blocking individual posts. Having a notice that certain types of anti-social, extreme negative posts (I have seen better descriptions out there ) can be blocked may prevent such types of posts.
Twitter is an excellent tool that libraries can use to communicate with their patrons. I think the best applications libraries can use Twitter for include information on events, resources, exhibits, news, general information and getting feedback. Because of the nature of Twitter is limited to a couple of sentences, posting information about events is a nice short reminder that patrons might have interest in, while providing a link for additional information. Like events, libraries can promote the marketing of exhibits on display at the library by using Twitter as a reminder of the exhibit. Re-occurring reminders may not be ideal on the same exhibit, as that might annoy patrons to the point of no longer following. Twitter is a great tool for libraries to post general information, like hours of operation changes. Additionally, the library could provide updates on significant resource acquisitions or updates. One of the things I think Twitter could be also successfully used is to solicit and receive feedback. Obviously there may be the potential for possible negative feedback, but I think generally people will see that the library does care about their patrons and is willing to listen and implement change where needed.
I think possible barriers to internal collaboration in organizations include management support, workplace diversity, and possible lack of action or recognition of the collaboration. First, management must encourage and value collaboration. If such an organization does not provide such value or recognition, then internal collaboration will likely have insignificant results. On the other hand, if an organization both recognizes and values collaboration, they have overcome the first potential hurdle in having successful internal collaboration. Second, the collaboration must extend and include people from a representative population from the entire organization, not just one particular “class” of employees. Having this “cross” collaboration will allow people to appreciate and understand perspectives from which they may not have yet realized. The example that comes to mind is the show “Undercover Boss” and it seems without exception that the boss gains a perspective that he was not previously aware. This exposure and interaction could lead to positive interactions which could lead to further organizational success. Third, the organization must recognize the collaboration and take action based upon the collaboration efforts. Eventually collaboration will fail if the members of the group recognize that any of their efforts are likely futile, thus preventing any type of progress or meaningful interaction.