We’re studying web 2.0 today, as the countdown to comps continues. David Gurteen has cleverly explained the 2.0 phenomenon in a powerpoint and chart comparing “World 1.0 and 2.0”. Today an area of focus for comps studies is Web 2.0. Following is a summary of information offered by the ACRL.
What about Web 2.0?
Microcontent, i.e. individual chunks of content, users can link to, pullout, unbundle, & repackage in a variety of creative forms; not pages or stories, but posts, photos, videos, tags and pod casts.
As a platform, i.e. using lightweight programming languages, running applications without downloading programs, and saving files on the web.
Radical openness, i.e. using a variety of applications which allow users to easily collaborate and share data across products and services.
User focused, i.e. most visible content is created by users from Amazon reviews to blog posts to LinkedIn pages and most applications are released in “beta” so user feedback shapes the way the applications develop.
Flattened hierarchy, i.e. resulting organization is dynamic and can be difficult with entry points that are hard to identify.
Implications of Web 2.0:
Libraries are using blogs, wikis and social tools to deliver dynamic and new services;
Web 2.0 allows users to interact with libraries and information in exciting ways;
Web 2.0 affects the way librarians help patrons find, manage, evaluate and use info tools and sources;
It is tempting to focus on limitations of Web 2.0;
Knowledge professionals should recognize tools are easy to find, easy to use and too useful for users for librarians not to recognize.
Information literate users:
Users must determine how much info needed, i.e. berry picking of info for learning and research, and complex non-hierarchical system;
Users must recognize the challenges of organization, i.e. how search engines work, how info is retrieved on the web, folksonomies, user-created metadata;
Users must be able to validate authority and evaluate a site without traditional editorial control;
Users must be able to keep their identities private while still contributing, i.e. teach awareness;
In Web 2.0, determining ownership is difficult and understanding of copyright is needed, i.e. easy for users to loose track of where they got the info and plagiarize