I finally got around to tabulating the results of the “what should we call social / web 2.0 tools?”, when we’re planning for next generation libraries.
Here are the results of my unscientific poll:
I think they’re interesting. After early pushback about the terms web 2.0 and library 2.0, those two terms have the combined support of 44%. 56% support some sort of change as we move forward but that’s all over the map. It was in the comments that I found some gold.
Here are the write-ins for the “Other” option (I took these directly from the comments portion of the blog post):
- Social media/tools (3)
- Emerging Technologies
- Tools of Engagement (I love this one!)
- Social Media Features (2)
- Virtual Social Media
- Something that includes the terms/language of the users (2)
Here are some of the comments:
Stephen’s Lighthouse: Polls
Comments from What is Web 2.0 and Library 2.0 in 2011?
“I’d stick to ‘normal’ or ‘reality’. Labeling it as anything else appears as though libraries are still trying to overcome something that everyplace else has absorbed into the status quo. Likewise, a label is a convenient marketing tool for ILS companies to upsell/upgrade to normality.”
“One assumption that I make is that the architecture behind what we do is going to change more rapidly than what we do changes. Calling things “Web 2.0″ or “Library 2.0″ focuses on the architecture rather than on the activities that people are engaged in. Now, I’m a systems guy, so personally, I’m more interested in the architecture than the actual services, but I recognize that the vast majority of our served populations won’t feel that way. Let’s describe what we do in their language, not a limited jargon that only we understand.”
“So…this is for talking to each other? I’d say social media or social tools. We changed the name of the MS Library 2.0 Summit to the MSU Libraries Emerging Technologies Summit to broaden the focus of the conference, but I think that term (ET) can encompass social tools along with the new tech we also need to talk about. I definitely agree about Web 2.0, Library 2.0, etc. being dated.”
“I agree with Ms. XXXX–”social media” is the term that makes sense and is already in use. No need to reinvent a LIS wheel.”
“This reminds me of when the term ‘web 2.0′ or ‘internet 2.0′ first started bubbling up. At first I thought it was something I needed to download or upgrade. Once I understood the meaning I was still baffled. To me, the 2.0, 3.0 etc. designation indicates a ‘version,’ a switch from an earlier edition to a ‘new and improved’ model. The technology changes I experience are much more organic in nature and feel evolutionary. I feel sort of tricked by the 2.0 idea and wasted too much time thinking about it. I plan to ignore 3.0, etc. To me it’s just the natural adaptation and progression of technology that we always see in human culture. But to your question, how about “I’d like to talk to you about the ‘tools of engagement’ on your web presence.” Ha!”
“I was starting to feel like we were beyond 2.0 a few months ago. Glad to see I’m not the only one. Social Features is close, but something in me says Social Media Features might be more understandable when you’re talking to library administrators or staff who do not “get” it yet. And I’m predicting that 6 months from now we’ll be trying to find an even better term.”
“As [others] mentioned, “social media,” or Social Media Features as Anne said, makes more sense, despite the fact that the term does not entirely encompass what can be done nowadays online, for today’s tools can go beyond being social. I feel XXX hit the mark though, that in 6 months, we’ll be trying to figure out a new term. Maybe Virtual social media? Virtual interraction? What?”
“Although the Poll results seem to indicate the majority want to stick with Web 2.0, I am with the others that think these are either dated terms. I also agree with Nicholas that we should speak to our users in terms in their language. I would also add that the term social media seems synonymous with the Facebook and Twitter brand that I am not sure it is the right term either. I like Amanda’s use of emerging technologies. The lack of specificity could be a good or bad thing but I like the idea that it can encompass a variety of tools without focussing on a particular brand. I will admit that it is a little clunky in Stephen’s sentence though: “I’d like to talk to you about the emerging technology tools on your web presence…” hmm needs some work.”
“Before we launched our ‘research 2.0′ programme earlier this year, we talked to a PhD focus group about their knowledge of web 2.0 – the term meant very little to them. So we tend to focus on a few different terms, depending on which tools/technologies we are talking about – some are networking tools (Linked In, Twitter), some are online collaborative tools (Google Docs, Dropbox, wikis), others are social reference/web page management (Mendeley, Zotero, Delicious etc.) and others are just what they are such as blogs. As a consequence our programme ended up with a very long winded name (Blogs, Twitter, wikis and other web-based tools: Collaborating and building your online presence) but it did as the focus group asked and described exactly what was included.”
So what did I learn, we’re still in an evolutionary state in library land on the adoption of 2.0 stuff, and, yep, I love ‘tools of engagement’. It expresses how I feel about aligning technology with library strategy(ies) to support user needs. It’s as always, not about the technology but about what you can do with it and what increased impact you can have.