We heard many very interesting talks during the two days of the symposium. We were lucky to get such good and talented speakers. Thank you once more to all the speakers and guests for making the symposium a great success.
Day 1
Kari A. Hintikka from the University of Jyväskylä gave an interesting and an extensive presentation of various aspects of Web 2.0, which he told us is a collection of buzz words. Web 2.0 involves 1) new business models, 2) networks and content sharing, and 3) the technology that uses the Internet as a platform. As an example of new business models Kari gave us freeconomics and talked about how it is changing business. Then he moved on to collaboration and took del.icio.us as an example. It is interesting how the simplest ideas often are the best. Del.icio.us really is more than just a place to store your bookmarks. It is a tool for collaboration in networks. Pareto’s law, the term Long Tail (by Chris Anderson) and scale free networks were all mentioned and how these are actually all referring to the same thing. Kari spent some time talking about crowdsourcing and “the wisdom of the crowds”, and he gave Innocentive as a good example of successful crowdsourcing. Interesting part of crowdsourcing, or maybe a relative of crowdsourcing, is the phenomenon of net detectives. Ordinary people have the tools and the knowledge to extract a lot of information from the Web, often faster than government officers. Kari ended his talk by presenting “the research swarm” or tutkimus.parvi.fi, which he predicts will be a common way organizations will work in 5 to 10 years time. It will be interesting to follow if his prediction comes true.
Lars Iselid from University of Umeå focused on mass collaboration and user generated content and how these affect both the value and evaluation of information. Lars asked if Wikipedia is an example of crowdsourcing and pointed out that the trick of successful Web 2.0, or Library 2.0, is to “get the people to do your work for free”. Lars cited Blyberg’s reasons why Library 2.0 exists and why it matters. He also brought a bit more critical view of Web 2.0 and Library 2.0 through Andrew Keen’s (or Mr. Anti-Web) books. Lars talked about how everyone can be authors and how everyone can be journalists, and how this may affect the quality of online information. User commentaries and wiki technologies provide easy-to-use tools that anyone can use and contribute, or misuse and use to mislead. Lars brought up examples like hoax sites and bogus scientific articles and mentioned sites like iceagenow.com and junkscience.com. This places new demands on Information Retrieval (IR) systems. Lars presented a model of an IR system that could sort the results according to the sender, the message and the status of the information. He also talked about filtering IR systems and used the symbolism of “Has someone peed in my beer?” to demonstrate spam and filtering out spam. Lars ended his talk with lifting Web 3.0 on the table and discussing Web 3.0 as the semantic web.
Kimmo Tuominen combined punk rock and the Force from Star Wars movies with Library 2.0, and he did it well. Kimmo made us see punk rock as the manifestation of ideology of participation or a movement that was “empowering the people”. He made us see how the Force that exists in everything in the Star Wars world could be seen as creative energy that surrounds us all. And this is where it became clear how he brilliantly connected “the wisdom of the crowds” and the architecture of participation with punk rock and the Force. Kimmo then moved on to talk about cognitive authority (by Patrick Wilson) and talked about three tests of cognitive authority. In conjunction with the first test, recognition of authority, Kimmo talked about RSS aggregators, authorless information and self-controlling functions of collaborative information system like wikis. With the second test, cognitive authority associated with a publisher, Kimmo talked about “knowledge brands” and open access. And with the third test, cognitive authority associated with document type, Kimmo made the connection to books and information “carved in stone” and the problems with digital information. He also suggested a new test of cognitive authority that more suits the Web; sociotechnical filtering solutions. “Punk is not dead! The force is still with us!”
Isto Huvila gave an almost beautiful talk about Information Service 2.0 and painted an interesting picture of what Library 2.0 and especially Information Service 2.0 could be. He started by discussing what Library 2.0 really is about and whether it is something new or just a new name for “old stuff”. He raised the question whether Library 2.0 is about unrealistic expectations or maybe new services and new technology to deliver these services. Huvila came to the conclusion that if there really exists a Library 2.0, then naturally there should also be a Information service 2.0. Information service 2.0 would according to Huvila focus on infomration instead of opinions, distill relevant information from personal contributions and user created content. Information service 2.0 would translate “your questions and answers” to “my questions and answers”, meaning that user participation and a kind of “collective individualism” might be the key factors in Library 2.0 and in Information service 2.0.
Day 2
Aira Lepik started the second day by giving us some definitions of Library 2.0. Definitions that are mainly given and discussed in the blogosphere. This showed us how difficult is it to exactly define what Library 2.0 really is. Is it a change? Is it evolution? The baseline was that she perceives Library 2.0 first and foremost as a social context. She also noted that the idea that libraries might realise their functions by other means than by printed books was put forward already in 1931 by Ranganathan. Then Aira moved to talk about the networked society and how this has made relationship marketing possible. The motivation to look at library 2.0 and relationship marketing together is that in library 2.0 there are many aspects, which relate closely to marketing. Aira noted that Library 2.0 is about leveraging more appropriate services for library customers, better understanding of roles, achieving personal and professional goals, its about marketing of digital library services to the net generation.
Kim Holmberg held his talk about libraries and Second Life. Kim started with an overview of what Second Life is and how it is used in different contexts. Kim pointed out a possibility that after Web 2.0 there will not be Web 3.0 (basically the +1.0 being an added semantic functionality), but instead there will be a Web 3D. Kim stressed the general interest in Second Life and the need to get involved in virtual worlds as a prominent future trend. In the second part of his speech, he reported of the first preliminary observations of the results of an on-going survey on libraries in Second Life. There seems to be a diversity of motivations to participate in Second Life from bringing library services to the citizens of virtual worlds to several professional and personal goals and motivations.
Mats Hernvall divided the OPAC’s and the web sites into two separate parts and showed how the competence of the librarians doesn’t show in the digital channel of the libraries, on their web sites. More of the librarians competence should be visible in the digital channel, not just the physical. Mats moved on to talk about new social and consumer patterns and about the library brand. Mats clearly gave us a more of a business point of view to Library 2.0. Something that he told us hasn’t been always welcomed with open arms by libraries. He placed idealism versus return of investment (ROI) and said that the long tail is actually public library business model. Mats talked about how new social software could help libraries to bring the customers to the libraries and for the libraries to be where the customers are, to add library presence. Mats also talked about what these ways could be by showing the building blocks of social media (by Gene Smith), and asked, “what is the added value from the libraries?”.
