Coordinating Committees

CUWL User Services Coordinating Committee
Web 2.0 Working Group
Report, October 2008

Barbara Bren (UW-Whitewater)
Patricia Fragola (UW-Whitewater)
Leah Ujda (UW-Madison)
Nick Weber (formerly of UW-Parkside)

Library users utilize new and evolving web technologies and functionality (e.g., social networking, tagging, wikis, folksonomies) in their daily use of web sites for learning, research and entertainment. These users expect to see university library services enhanced in these ways as well. Additionally, many Web 2.0 tools are being used by libraries to increase their patron base and as part of outreach efforts. The Web 2.0 Working Group investigated opportunities for innovative Internet-based delivery and enhancement of library user services using Web 2.0 tools by performing a literature review and conducting a survey of UW System libraries’ current use of such tools.

The literature review focused on two major aspects of Web 2.0 technology: content sharing and content manipulation (Appendix A). Overall, the literature showed that libraries were turning to Web 2.0 as a means of connecting and communicating with their users. Web 2.0 tools can help not only create new services or points of contact but also extend traditional services to the increasing number of online users. Much of the literature stressed, however, this cannot be done by a simplistic “if we build it they will come” approach. Libraries must tailor and time their content and services to be relevant needs of users. Libraries must also actively and adeptly market We 2.0 tools. When this can be achieved most libraries found, as evidenced by the literature, that they were able to connect with previously unknown and/or underserved segments of their clientele.

The Web 2.0 Working Group also surveyed UW System libraries to gauge current usage of Web 2.0 technology. The survey showed that blogs are commonplace among campus libraries, and usually are used to communicate with library users. Wikis were also common but used more for internal communication. Chat or instant messaging reference services were very common, with some libraries using Meebo and others Questionpoint. Other tools, such as social networking or social bookmarking, are less common among System libraries. In several cases librarians said that they adopted new tools based on reports from others in the profession. Staff size may be a factor limiting experimentation and perhaps can be addressed by collective effort. Results of the survey are summarized in Appendix B.

Survey results formed the foundation for a roundtable at the June 2008 One System, One Library conference in Madison (Appendix C). Approximately 20 people attended the roundtable discussion. While the finds of the workgroup formed the backdrop of the session, the discussion quickly became a lively exchange of who’s doing what and what issues should be considered. Several participants shared tips and suggestions based on their experiences. As a way to reduce the need for technical expertise, library staff were encouraged to communicate their interests in exploring Web 2.0 tools to their IT departments.

In summary, the literature review and survey of system libraries has shown that the uses for Web 2.0 technology and tools are infinite, bounded only by user need and staff creativity. In addition an audience exist within UW system libraries for learning and discussion forums to develop and implement these tools.

This report and appendices are also available at http://cuwlwiki.wetpaint.com/page/Web+2.0+Tools

APPENDIX A

McDermott, I.E. "All A-Twitter About Web 2.0: What Does it Offer Libraries?". Searcher v. 15 no. 9 (October 2007) p. 34, 36-7, 39.

This article offers a nice overview of several different free, web based tools that can be beneficial to libraries. Some of the tools included in this article: Facebook, de.licio.us, Flickr, YouTube. A brief "how to get started" section, as well as ideas of potential applications for each tool are discussed.

Snipes, Phyllis R. "Folksonomy vs. Minnie Earl and Melville". Library Media Connection 25 no. 7 (April/May 2007) p. 54-6.

While published in a School Library focused journal, this article makes points and raises ideas that are relevant to academic librarians as well. The impact of Web 2.0 Tools, and the tech skills of current high school students are discussed in terms of information literacy skills. The author points out the importance of understanding user needs, and assessing the impact of Web 2.0 activities in a library.

Atwater-Singer, Meg & Kate Sherrill. "Social Software, Web 2.0, Library 2.0, & You: A Practical Guide for Using Technology @ Your Library". Indiana Libraries vol. 26 no. 3 (2007) p. 48-52.

I'm going to quote a line from the abstract I found in the Library Literature database, because it sums the article up nicely in 2 sentences.: "This article looks at si different technologies: instant messaging, weblogs and RSS, wikis, podcasting, photo sharing, and VOIP. Each entry offers a definition of the tool/technology, its uses in a library, audiences that are currently using it, and a selection of helpful articles and websites."

Stephens, Michael and Rachei Singer Gordon. "Priceless Images: Getting Started with Flickr" Computers in Libraries vol. 26 no. 10 (November/December 2006) p. 44-5.

The authors of this article point out that a great benefit of the web is it's graphic nature and visual orientation. An easy (and free) way to take advantage of this benefit is by using Flickr for outreach and patron interaction.

Rethlefsen, Melissa L. "Tags Help Make Libraries del.icio.us." Library Journal vol. 132 no. 15 (2007) p. 26-8.

The author points out ways that tagging tools can "help librarians bridge the gap between the library's need to offer authoritative, well-organized information and their patrons' web experience." The best of both worlds? Library style organizationmeets patrons' Google style expectations.

Packi, Thomas. "A del.icio.us Way to Use Bookmarks". Information Today vol. 24 no. 4 (April 2007) p. 36-7.

Another article about social, web based bookmarking tools. This one highlights some of the benefits of sharing bookmarks, and what users can learn from the tagging tactics of others.

Wikis

Clark, C. J., & Mason, E. B. (2008). "A wiki way of working." Internet Reference Services Quarterly, 13(1), 113-132.

Describes three digital tools used in combination at a small graduate school library: shared server space with read/write permissions for all staff, an online employee schedule that all staff can edit independently, and an editable training and knowledge management wiki.

Ebersbach, A. (2006). Wiki: Web collaboration. Berlin ; New York : Springer.

Frumkin, J. (2005). "The Wiki and the digital library." OCLC Systems & Services, 21(1), 18-22.

A look at how collaborative tools, such as Wikis, can be utilized in a digital library environment to facilitate research and collaboration. Three potential applications discussed: knowledge base tool, content management tool, anda tool to empower interactive finding aids.

Glogowski, J., & Steiner, S. (2008). "The life of a wiki: How Georgia State University Library's wiki enhances content currency and employee collaboration." Internet Reference Services Quarterly, 13(1), 87-98.

Describes uses of an internal wiki.

Kajewski, M. (2007). "Emerging technologies changing our service delivery models." The Electronic Library, 25(4),420-429.

Examples of integrating technologies such as blogs, wikis, RSS aggregators, podcasts, vodcasts, web conferencing, and IM into library services and programs in Australian public libraries.Finds that these technologies have increased patrons' interaction with and access to library services and collections. By providing information in various formats these technologies are meeting various and individual requirements, and reflect the increasing demand of services in virtual environments.

Lukasiewicz, A. (2007). "Exploring the role of digital academic libraries: Changing student needs demand innovative service approach." Library Review, 56(9),821 - 827

An in-depth discussion of podcasting, wikis, and virtual reference in the context of the academic library.

Payne, J. (2008). "Using wikis and blogs to improve collaboration and knowledge sharing." Strategic HR Review, 7(3), 5-12.

This article explores the role of wikis and blogs in supporting collaboration through three case studies.Findings suggest that social software haspotential to help organizations develop collaboration capability, but the bottom-up features that make it attractive to users can also make it unattractive to groups of people with a stake in preserving existing organizational structures. The impact of social software in an organization depends on the nature of the existing hierarchy and bureaucracy, andsocial software can help organizations break down traditional hierarchies that impede collaboration and knowledge sharing.

Welsh, A. (2007). "Internal wikis for procedures and training." Online, 31 (6), 26-29.

Case of the wiki as a useful backbone of information from which reports are written,changes in procedures over time are monitored, and colleagues are trained/collaborated with.

Examples

Library Success: A Best Practices Wiki (http://www.libsuccess.org/index.php?title=Main_Page)
Wikipedia (http://www.wikipedia.org/) - see section on wikis too!
Biz Wiki (http://www.library.ohiou.edu/subjects/bizwiki/index.php/Main_Page)
For more see http://del.icio.us/doxie/wikiexamples

Blogs and Web Apps

Stephens, Michael. "Blogs." (2006) Library Technology Reports; Jul/Aug2006, Vol. 42 Issue 4, p15-35

Somewhat dated but does provide a complete and useful overview of blogs and blogging.

Young, Jeffery R. (2008) "Blog Comments vs. Peer Review: Which Way Makes a Book Better?" Chronicle of Higher Education, February 1, 2008. and Young, Jeffery R.(2008) "Experimental Use of Blog-Based Peer Review Gives Mixed Results." Chronicle of Higher Education, April 2, 2008.

The first article lays out a simple experiment of using blog comments to review a prepublication scholarly work. The second article presents the results of the experiment. The series of articles is interesting from the standpoint of it presents some limitations of blogs that provide insight to more effective use. The results of the experiment indicate the blogbased reviews came from a wider audience (than traditional peer review) and were more both familiar and more critical with the topic and author. In terms of the generic library blog (or any blog for that matter) we should probably veiw this as suggesting the people reading our blogs are not the people we expected to be reading them. And that these people are no less interested or in need of our content.

Miller, Paul(2007). "What Happens When You Mash the Library?" Ariadne, Issue 50, January 2007. (www.ariadne.ac.uk )

Short article reviewing the Talis Library Mashup competition. The conclusions are the most important part of this article. The author points out that mashups are not the means to an end but part of a larger picture. Useful Bibliography.

Hodgins, Wayne (2007). Off Course-On Target Blog: Mishmash of Mashups, July 25, 2007. (http://waynehodgins.typepad.com/ontarget/2007/07/mishmash-of-mas.html)

Using Lego blocks as a metaphor the author explains the purpose and strengths of mashups. Viewing these web apps through a conceptual framework rather than a technical one will only enhance the of the tools. Blog entry also contains many links to other writers on the topic.

Bell, Steven (2005). "Where the Readers Are." Library Journal; Fall 2005 Net Connect, Vol. 130, p8-14.

Article advocates integrating Library blogs into courseware. Survey indicates that 75% of students appreciated or found useful library blog content being available in their courseware pages.

Xu, Chen(2007). The Academic Library Meets Web 2.0: Applications & Implications. Presentation presented at ACRL/NY Annual Symposium. (http://eprints.rclis.org/archive/00012164/01/The_Academic_Library_Meets_Web_2.0_Applications_&_Implications.pdf)

Presentation of results of Web 2.0 Tools survey of Academic Libary in New York State. Interesting to compare results to WI.

Brandel, Mary. (2008) "Are You Obsolete?" Computerworld; 1/28/2008, Vol. 42 Issue 5, p28-32 .

Written more for IT managers and staff but could easily be directed at Librarians. Article implores IT to do away with the "Dr. No" or "the Abominable No Man" mentality of managing technology. With the increase on Web 2.0 IT departments (Librarians) need to be open to ideas and technology that is flexible, easy to use and useful. They have to understand the larger purpose of how the technology will help the company (library) succeed and profit.

Draper, Lani and Marthea Turnage (2008). "Blogmania: Blog Use in Academic Libraries." Internet Reference Services Quarterly; 2008, Vol. 13 Issue 1, p15-55.

Authors present the results a survey on blog usage among academic libraries. The results are not unexpected, showing that most libraries that have blogs use it to inform users of news and events. Most libraries view their blog as a marketing tool, however the authors note that it is important to also market the blog in order to alert users to its existence.

Swanson, Troy A. (2006) Looking to the Future: Implementing Blogs in a Community College Library, Internet Reference Services Quarterly; 2006, Vol. 11 Issue 3, p57-67

Article discussed the administrative steps often required to implement a library blog.

Murray, David and Steven Bell. (2007). College & Research Libraries News; Oct2007, Vol. 68 Issue 9, p576-579.

Article advocates the importance of Librarians locating and regularly reading faculty blogs. They contend that by reading appropriate faculty blogs Librarians can at a minimum 1) gain insight into faculty concerns, 2) better understand faculty perspectives, 3) improve collection development. The authors recommend a number of blogs Librarians should look at.

SocialNetworks
Social Networking Bibliography

Articles

Balas, Janet L. “Social Networks and the Library Community,” Computers in Libraries, v. 28, #4, 2008, p. 40.

Landis, Cliff. “Social Networking Sites: Getting Friendly With Our Users,” College & Research Libraries News, v. 68, #11, 2007, p. 709.

Lankes, R. David, et al. “Participatory Networks: The Library as Conversation,” Information Technology and Libraries, v. 26, #4, 2007, p. 17.

Maxymuk, John. “Whose Space?” The Bottom Line, v. 20, #2, 2007, p. 97.

Topper, Elisa F. “Social Networking in Libraries,” New Library World, v. 108, #7/8, 2007, p. 378.

Monographs

Bruns, Axel. Blogs, Wikipedia, Second Life and Beyond: From Production to Produsage. Peter Lang Publishing, 2008.

Chatfield, T. Brian. The Myspace.com Handbook; The Complete Guide for Members and Parents. Atlantic Publishing Company, 2008.

Farkas, Meredith G. Social Software in Libraries: Building Collaboration, Communication, and Community Online. Information Today, Inc., 2007.

Mayank, Sharma. Elgg Social Networking. Packt Publishing, 2008.

Blogs

Friends: Social Networking Sites for Engaged Library Services. A blog by Gerry McKiernan of Iowa State University ranging over all aspects of social networks and there use in libraries. Available at: http://onlinesocialnetworks.blogspot.com/.

walking paper. Aaron Schmidt’s blog ranges over a wide variety of library topics, but social networking and other web 2.0 developments are central to his posts. Available at:www.walkingpaper.org.

Information Wants To Be Free. A library and technology blog maintained by Meredith Farkas, author of Social Software in Libraries. The blog covers a wide variety of topics, but social networks and networking are one of the most common topics. Available at: http://meredith.wolfwater.com/wordpress/index.php

Websites

General:

• http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol13/issue1/
• http://www.pbs.org/mediashift/2007/08/digging_deeperyour_guide_to_so_1.html
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_social_networking_websites
Elgg: http://elgg.org
Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/about.php
MySpace:
• http://www.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=misc.aboutus
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MySpace

Digital Resources:

General: http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol13/issue1/boyd.ellison.html
Library: http://sns.mlanet.org/blog
Facebook:
• http://www.public.iastate.edu/~gerrymck/FacebookInTheCrowd.ppt
• http://www.iastate.edu/Inside/2006/0224/facebook.shtml


APPENDIX B

UW-Baraboo/Sauk County
We’ve experimented a little with Web 2.0 tech here at UW-Baraboo/Sauk County.

I have one professor doing coursecasting, available thru UW Colleges’ coursecasting page; http://coursecast.uwc.edu
We use Meebo.com’s chat interface…and have Chat IDs for MSN, Yahoo, and Google Talk.
We occasionally host images or video from library events on sites like Flickr…not sure
We’ve also added a LibraryThing.com link to our website in order to promote our new additions.
I also created a personal Facebook profile to try to establish a library presence there.

Most of these initiatives began within the past year, and we just chose tools that were recommended in
journals, by colleagues, etc. We’re hoping to find new ways to support the campus, and to raise
awareness of the services that we offer. We have not done any assessment to date.

UW-Sheboygan
I can’t really identify that UW-Sheboygan Library is using Web 2.0 tools at the present, and we don’t have any concrete plans to implement soon. I believe some of our databases do have RSS-feeds type features, but that’s about it. I would say the largest impediment to greater use is our staff size – just not a large priority with everything else going on. As other campuses implement, we’ll probably pick up ideas/possibilities from them.

UW-Barron County
What Web 2.0 tools are you using?or What tools are you planning to use? I have used RSS feeds – I have few right now. I have found some very difficult to cancel. I use wikis for ALA committees and Flickr for AILA and ALA groups, We also have a list on Amazon’s IMDb and a Google Books new book list. We have a facebook presence but it needs tweaking to be more effective. I plan to have my kids teach me Instant messaging.
When did you start? 2 years ago at least. I was in a meeting at ALA in DC where someone was complaining about our work on the WIKI taking some learning curve time. The meeting was about Native American Tribal libraries. I told them I needed to WIcKIup to get better at it too and everyone broke up laughing.
Why did you choose (or not choose) specific Web 2.0 tools? IT is what we do.
What are you expecting to gain or achieve from these tools? Info saturation
Have you done any assessment on these tools? If so what are the results showing? Planning to assess – have not done much yet.

Eau Claire
1) We’re using a blog/RSS feed to run our library news on our library homepage, and have used blogs for student worker communication, for construction projects, and for events (National Library Week). WE started using blogs about two years ago.
2) We’re using wikis in reference as training tools and for procedures. Probably been a year on that.
3) We use Flickr for library pics – about a year on this.
4) We have individual presences in Facebook
5) We’re exploring using Meebo for virtual reference
6) We hoped by using these to get students more involved by using their tools and to become familiar with t hem ourselves.
7) We haven’t really evaluated these as yet. We know students like the blogs for internal communication. Not many externally have commented. We’re not thrilled with the wikis.

La Crosse
Periodicals Librarian
• use IM (MEEBO) (for over a year)
• a blog for periodicals that has an RSS feed (for about 10 months). I chose MEEBO as a “point of need” option for user questions regarding periodicals.

Electronic Resources Librarian
• Blog for e-resource updates: http://eresources.wordpress.com/
• Blog feed that embeds e-resource updates into library web page (maroon box): http://www.uwlax.edu/murphylibrary/database/index.html
• Meebo box on e-resource pages
• Individual FaceBook profile
• Jing to easily and quickly capture video “how to’s” and screen images to send to patrons and vendors

Outreach Librarian
• Created a Wiki for staff communication (for storing shared evaluation materials)
• Created YouTube videos for public and staff use
• Created blogs for departments, public, and library staff. Not all caught on.

Reference/ILL & Document Delivery
• MEEBO as a chat service tool, used during a trial period, not kept
• RSS feeds active in ILLiad

Platteville
At the moment UWP is not utilizing any Web 2.0 tools. Our DE program uses wikis/widgets.

River Falls
What Web 2.0 tools are you using? Facebook to publicize our fall 2007 library orientation sessions, w/very poor results, as our ad got snowed by the large Facebook advertisers, i.e., very few real views. We got better results with the Facebook UWRF group event notice board, which we used for our extended hours announcement & our LibQUAL+ survey publicity.
Several staff members have Facebook pages.

We have Wikis for Ref. staff & student staff & ALA committee participation.

When did you start? Fall 2007

Why did you choose (or not choose) specific Web 2.0 tools? Facebook=e-mail+ to UWRF students.

What are you expecting to gain or achieve from these tools? Communication

Have you done any assessment on these tools? Just evaluating the success, or not, of the advertised events.

Stout
What Web 2.0 tools are you using? Blog, wikis (for staff use). Looking into RSS feeds for new books

When did you start? Blog and wiki about 2 years ago

Why did you choose (or not choose) specific Web 2.0 tools?
Blog—used for What’s New@the Library. It allows for many contributors in a timely fashion, thus more up to date than a web page. It is easy to use and free.
Wiki—used for working on documents between staff members
Instant Messaging—tried this for reference questions, but received no questions. Also tried virtual reference with the Wisconsin trial, but decided that a reference email account worked better for us.

What are you expecting to gain or achieve from these tools?
RSS—Currently do reports from Voyager and manually send to instructors alerting them to new materials in their subject areas. Would like to automate this more.

Have you done any assessment on these tools? If so what are the results showing? No assessment.

Whitewater
What Web 2.0 tools are you using?

• We started using a blog in April 2007 and allow comments (mediated). It has an RSS feed. It has not had a high number of comments, but we know people are reading it (one blog entry was copied into a faculty member’s blog—we were notified).
• We’ve offered an RSS feed (users can select by LC classification) for new acquisitions since 2006.
• Photos of the Library are on Flickr (linked to from our “About Us” webpage during the website redesign summer 2007 and shots are used in various other places as needed)
• Three reference librarians offer IM access (in addition to email and chat) with small usage so far.
• The library created a wiki for academic misconduct in Dec. 2006 which was rolled out in fall 2007. Minimal exposure, very minimal participation.
• Google gadget created and published spring 2008.
• D2L widget for a long time now.
• Reference librarians sometimes using del.icio.us for use with BIs since 2007.
• We’ve had a staff session on Library Thing with its tagging, and one staff member has been investigating Second Life.
• One librarian advertises himself as “library guy” on Facebook, and the library has a page there.

Selections of Web 2.0 tools was based on staff interest and discovery, difficulties encountered (we tried out Meebo and decided against it)

Expectations: Increased exposure and usage. Better idea of what users want/need and greater agility in helping them when they need it

Any assessment? Only anecdotal notice of usage (usually minimal)

Green Bay
Wikis, None
Blogs, Moderate Promote collections and services, 4 years
Social Networking, Moderate Personal use by staff to network and outreach, 2 years
IM Services, Moderate Meebo-- provide a way to connect with customers, 2 years
Social Bookmarking, None
Photo Sharing Services, Minimal Archive photos of library displays, 2 years
RSS Feeds, None
Podcasting, None
Other, None

Milwaukee
Wikis, Some, Internal, staff use only--central clearing house for ideas, data, etc., 6 months
Blogs, Extensive, Main, e-learning, multimedia and curriculum blog. Features updates, highlights holdings and supports online learning iniatives. Main: 4 yrs. Others: 1 yr.
Social Networking, None, Developing a Lib Guide site to have a Facebook aspect in fall.
IM Services, Some, Ind. accts. for librarians using widgets. Full IM in the fall; seen as providing best ease of access for the students in a format they like & utilize. 6 months
Social Bookmarking, None, Exploring possibilities
Photo Sharing Services, Some, Using Flickr to enhance guides & handouts.
RSS Feeds, None, In development
Podcasting, Moderate, Virtual tours of library and to provide online access to intruction sessions.
Other

Oshkosh
Wikis, None
Blogs, Moderate, Public blog for information dissemination, plus 2 internal blogs
Social Networking, None
IM Services, Moderate, AskAway service, 5 years
Social Bookmarking, Some, Use to provide links for particularly challenging assignments, 1 year
Photo Sharing Services, None
RSS Feeds, Minimal, Main blog is available via RSS feed
Podcasting, None
Other, None

Parkside
Wikis, None
Blogs, Moderate, Internal and public blogs for info dissemination, 6 months
Social Networking, None
IM Services Moderate Chatango on Instr. Pages and
IM for ref. desk hours
2 years
Social Bookmarking None
Photo Sharing Services None
RSS Feeds None
Podcasting None
Other None

Stevens Point
Wikis, Moderate, Info for patrons and a central location for data; internal staff use for shared projects, 6 months
Blogs, Moderate, Promotion and awareness raising, 1 year
Social Networking, None
IM Services, None
Social Bookmarking, None
Photo Sharing Services, None
RSS Feeds, Moderate, Periodicals and Blog--increase resource discovery and provide an access too for research and assignments, 1 year
Podcasting, Moderate, Collaboration with faculty, 1 year
Other, None

Superior
Wikis
Blogs
Social Networking
IM Services
Social Bookmarking
Photo Sharing Services
RSS Feeds
Podcasting
Other

UW- Madison
College Library: IM/Chat (Velaro and Trillian services), Flickr, delicious, Facebook, widgets*
Wendt Library: Blog, RSS feed, Flickr, delicious, Facebook
Steenbock Library: Chat (Plugoo service), RSS feed, Blog
Business Library: RSS feed
Law Library: Chat (Plugoo), Blog, Facebook, Google maps

*Each of these 5 example libraries has a widget created by a programmer at College Library that shows a real time inventory of how many laptops are available for students to check out.

Here at the UWDCC we are using: RSS feed, Google Earth, bookmark tools, Flickr

I also browsed the websites of several smaller member libraries (such as Art, Physics, Chemistry, etc), but did not find that they are actively marketing Web 2.0 tools or services on their websites. (This does not necessarily mean that no Web 2.0 tools are being considered, tested, or used.)

Next, I met with Kelli Keclik of College Library, Karen Dunn of Steenbock Library, and Steve Meyer of the Library Technology Group to find out more details about time and planning, successful implementations of Web 2.0 tools, and plans for the future.

In addition to the tools listed above, I talked to Kelli about some additional interactive features on the College Library website. One of their most popular links is a polling tool. Users can submit a poll question, or the librarians can create one themselves. It is used both for fun (spring break plans, NCAA basketball tournament picks), and as a collection development tool. Kelli said it was particularly valuable when she was planning a new video game collection that was added to the leisure section of College Library this semester. She used the poll tool to find out what game systems people are most interested in, what kinds of games they like, etc. Users can also submit photographs of College Library to be included on the front page of the website.

Several individual librarians around the UW Madison campus have Facebook pages, and College is one of a few libraries to have a page for the institution. A few of the features on their Facebook page that Kelli pointed out are the WorldCat search tool, and a Meebo chat link that redirects users to the Velaro chat service that is staffed at the reference desk. Kelli acknowledged that most students tend to use Facebook as a social site rather than a research site, but she sees no harm in creating a page as it is very easy to maintain (minimal to no time/effort is required once the page is created) and might prove to be useful to students who are already logged in to this popular site.

In the future, Kelli hopes to implement mobile technologies in the College Library Web 2.0 toolbox. She is interested in testing out text message reference services, and possible ways to make library content and services useful in a portable device such as an iPhone or Blackberry.

At Steenbock, Karen uses the library blog as a newsletter/breaking news hybrid. She uses Blogger as the host, and has the two most current posts fed directly to the library's main website in the "News" section of their front page. She mixes up the content to include dates and times for workshops, special hours or events in the library, information about new materials in the collection, as well as "lighter" content such as book reviews, odd facts gleaned from the library's collections, or news from other sources that relates to the Steenbock Library user group (agriculture, life sciences, veterinary medicine). Karen uses Google Analytics to track the "value" in her content. Information such as number of hits, time on the site, navigation (how a user finds the site), access speed, and geographic information about the user. This is a free service, that Karen praised as being very robust and easy to use.

The UW Madison General Library System has a general "Ask a librarian" chat/IM service, but several of the specialized libraries (such as Steenbock) also have a chat service that is specific to their library. Steenbock uses Plugoo, a free service. The service is staffed by whoever is at the reference desk at a given time. This arrangement has been cause for conversation at Steenbock, as the reference librarians strive to maintain quality service in all of their transactions. There was some concern about answering chat and face-to-face questions at the same time, and ending up giving lower quality service to both patrons in the process. Karen brought up the point that "good service" is defined by user expectations, and it seems that chat patrons are not put off or discouraged if the librarian they are chatting with has to step away for a minute, or needs to pause mid chat to do another task. It seems to be an accepted part of using chat as a medium for communication that there will be pauses and breaks during a conversation.

Looking forward, Karen wants to continue investigating free tools that are available online to enhance the services that Steenbock offers. Mobile content and podcasts are one area that Steenbock hopes to expand into.

Steve Meyer, of the Library Technology Group, defined Web 2.0 as more of a personalization movement than as a set of tricks or tools to be implemented. As a member of the library website redesign team, he pointed out that personalized features such as
online subject guides created by librarians in the smaller subject based libraries on campus are a way of making web content more personal to various user groups. Regardless of the tool used to create personalized content, the fact that content is customizable and can be repackaged or repurposed by users according to their needs is the most important idea behind Web 2.0 according to Steve. He recommended an interesting article which basically points out that technology is constantly evolving and that Web 2.0 is a bit of a misnomer. It's not an end point, but the current state of technology and development.

APPENDIX C

BLOGS (PF)

    • Easy to use
    • Most Familiar
    • Very popular

  • 9 UW Libraries use blogs (of those that responded to our survey)
  • http://blogs.uww.edu/library
    Allows for feedback

  • Not always easy to encourage feedback
    Often used as a Marketing tool

  • Needs to be marketed
    Can be a learning resource

  • For students, professional development

  • May not be seen as a learning tool
    Can be a tool to contact with different or unique service groups

  • A great way to connect with faculty

WIKIS (BB)
(examples: see http://del.icio.us/doxie/wikis) - includes link to site that compares wiki software options and indicates which are hosted wikis

    • Easy to use (no coding knowledge needed)
    • Less familiar or understood (uncommon among UW libraries)
    • Many possible uses:

  • Staff work repository (access can be restricted, alternative to clutter on a shared
    drive): procedures, meeting minutes, etc.
  • Group projects, classroom or professional (CUWL wiki is an example!)
  • Professional development/knowledge sharing
  • Public service (reference and instruction)

IM/CHAT (PF)
( Jabber, Meebo)

Note re issue raised at conference June 3rd aboutUWS reference question/answer retention in the proposed "General Schedule for Library Records" and Meebo's short retention time: there is not a UWS 2-week retention rule. The rule is "Destroy when no longer needed." Archives reference requests and responses are different; the rule there is "Fiscal Year + 1 additional year and thereafter destroy confidentially."

• Students already familiar with it

• Ask-a-Librarian

• Many different application options -

Can be limiting unless using a software like Meebo or Trillian that can pull from other software

• Can be a useful tool for internal communication as well

• Can’t always be a substitute for personal interaction

SOCIAL NETWORKING (NW)

• Web based communities that allow the sharing of photos, instant messaging, file sharing and other forms of interaction amongst people with similar interests, friends or activities.

  • MySpace (Largest)
  • Facebook (Popular with college students)
  • Over 200 existing social networking sites
  • Often include many of the other Web 2.0 tools (blogs, podcasts, photo and file sharing)

• Especially popular with teenagers and young adults

  • Target demographic for universities
  • Libraries can use as outreach, marketing, and instruction tool
  • Brooklyn College Library (www.myspace.com/brooklyncollegelibrary.com)

  • UIUC Undergraduate Library (www.myspace.com/undergraduatelibrary)

    • • How to set up a profile

    • Social Networking concerns

    • Privacy/Confidentiality (OCLC report on concerns of copyright, identity theft, etc.)
    • Plagiarism/Cheating (Cawsey, Kathy. "Blame Facebook," Academic Matters, April-May, 2008, p. 28)

    BOOKMARKS AND TAGGING (lu)

    • Web based bookmarking tools allow portable links, users can create own categorization of content

    • Delicious: Social bookmarking tool. Users can tag websites, articles, etc with any word or combination of words they choose.
  • UWDC page

    • • Add This! button on UWDC pages

    • Allow immediate access to many popular tools- free
    • Add button to existing pages- UW Collection

    PHOTO/CONTENT SHARING (lu)

    • Flickr- Online photo management and sharing application

    • Free to use, up to 100 mb of uploads per month
    • Two examples of libraries in Flickr:
  • College
  • UWDCC
    • Features of site:
      • Sets/albums for content organization
      • Text description of image
      • Links are allowed
      • Tags
      • Creative Commons licensing

    WEB APPs (PF)
    (UWW’s gadget, http://www.zillow.com, http://www.bibliopage.com, www.geobirds.com)
    • Can be difficult to set up

    • Should always serve a purpose or solve a problem
    • To be useful must be easy to use

    • Evaluate Data
    • Copyright Issues