POLL: What is Web 2.0 and Library 2.0 in 2011?
Check out my blog for real if you’re reading this in a RSS feed in your browser and take my little poll please. It’s over on the right side and will take about a minute.
One of the challenges facing librarians today is that Web 2.0 has evolved. One early edition of the conversation was to contextualize the conversation as Library 2.0. These were useful terms when we needed to label a necessary professional discussion but I think we’ve almost hit a place where all this 2.0 stuff is pretty normal. So, what do we call the social and interactive features of our websites, products or learning systems now?
So I think it’s time for a poll!
What do we call “Web 2.0″ technology when it is all around us? I worry that “Web 2.0” has become a dated term since we’ve moved beyond that being an emerging aspect of online technology. Now that it is fully emerging, and possibly expected instead of ‘special’, what do we call it?
Please vote for one of the choices below or suggest your own in a comment and we will add it to a poll results:
Web 2.0 (keep it the same)
Library 2.0 (keep it library focused)
Web Tool
Collaboration feature
Online Tool
Web App
Social Feature
Sharing Feature
Networking Tool
Sharing Tool
Learning Tool
Recommendation Tool
Other: __________________________
I’m trying a new polling plug-in so this one doesn’t let me collect open-ended comments. So please feel free to add terms of comments to this blog post.
I’ll publish the results of this poll in a few weeks. Thanks for participating.
Stephen
10 Responses
Stay in touch with the conversation, subscribe to the RSS feed for comments on this post.
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.
Ken: You might see my challenge more if you tried putting it in a sentence . . . “I’d like to talk to you about the ‘normal’ stuff on your web presence…”. For many of these tools they’re not ‘normal’ in many library websites. Do we imply that they’re disconnected from’reality’? It just doesn’t work for me.
Stephen
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. Powers–“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 Amanda and H Mellas 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 Anne 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.