And what about the public histories we’re creating through our tweets? The personal ephemera that develops as we document new jobs, wedding proposals, reactions to social events, etc. Last year the Dean of the iSchool, Seamus Ross was on CBC Radio’s Spark, and made a good point about how our information — letters, notes, pictures, home videos — create an intimate portrait of ourselves and our lives.  Stow it all in a shoebox under the bed, and your legacy lives on (assuming your grand kids are smart enough to find, consume, and preserve the items).

But when all this information takes on a digital format — e-mails, digital photos and videos, and of course, Facebook postings, Twitter tweets, and blog postings? How is it being preserved so that someone can re-find it is all those disparate locations? How is it being preserved? What happens when the USB on which you stored all your digital photos becomes an obsolete technology? It’s an interesting issue to grapple with as more and more of us use these applications in lieu of traditional media (not that traditional media can and does get preserved very well. But it’s the devil we know, right? And paper doesn’t require an application to use.). Luckily the Library of Congress is taking a small step towards responsible preservation of one of these applications. About 90% of tweets sent on Twitter are completely inane, but that other 10% will contain fascinating insights about our world when we’re all old and wrinkly.

One of the movements sweeping the world of academic publishing is the Open Access movement. I didn’t realllly get it until I attended some sessions on the topic at the CLA Annual Conference. And then had to explain it to non-librarians (the true test of knowledge).

I had to sum up my job to parents, and in doing so, found myself explaining in the simplest terms possible, the whole “Open Access” movement. I told them this:

1) Professors make research. It is expensive! But important. So the government gives the universities money to do it.

2) Their research is brilliant! So they want to share it with others by publishing it in a journal. Also, if they don’t publish in some really prestigious journals, they don’t get tenure. Tenure is where you get some job security and a nice-sized paycheque.

3) They don’t get paid to put their work in those journals, though. It’s like getting paid to receive the Order of Canada – just being there is enough prestige.

4) Those journals have important information in them! And universities need that information so people can do research. They work with libraries to get those journals into the library collections.

5) These journals can cost tens of thousands of dollars a year. It is expensive! But important. So the government gives the universities money to do it.

You’ll note that two of these stages are the same. Open Access just seeks to cut out the last stage, so that tax payers aren’t paying for that research twice (There are a lot of other really good reasons that OA is awesome, but that’s the explanation that resonates the most with my parents. No doubt they agree with concepts related to freedom of information and a narrowing of the global digital divide, but taxes – that really gets ‘em).

A big report just came out from the Knowledge Exchange in Europe, which discusses the economic savings of Open Access policies for research bodies. Among the most interesting points is the assertion that,  “Open access or ‘author-pays’ publishing for journal articles… might bring net system savings of around EUR 70 million per annum nationally in Denmark, EUR 133 million in the Netherlands and EUR 480 million in the UK (at 2007 prices and levels of publishing activity…”.

So, beside the important ethical and technological merits of this movement, there’s an even more salient reason for institutions to pursue economic policies… And it is called the bottom line.

One is Zotero, which markets itself as a Firefox extension to help you collect, manage, and cite your research sources. It lives right where you do your work — in the web browser itself. I use it to organize my bookmarks in Firefox, since you can include tags and other metadata (we all know how much lie-berrians love the metadata). However beyond a regular bookmark organizer, there are add-ons for Microsoft Word and OpenOffice which allow you to generate auto-formatted bibliographies. Genius!

I haven’t used it for any of my papers yet, but I do like holding on to the kinds of webpages that have a habit of getting buried (i.e.: news articles or blog posts) and seeing all the stuff I have tagged for “throw cushions” or “Report on Business” in a single list (welcome to my browsing behaviours). I made a few bibliographies in Word, and it works beautifully – akin to Office 2007′s internal References functionality, but with the added benefit of being integrated right in your web brower. It’s also open source, so if you’re a coding dork – go nuts.

Another app I just downloaded is called Digsby, which is one of those integrated web-based thingys that puts all your social media crappola into one pretty list so you don’t go crazy trying to keep up with all your status updates when all you really want to do it go read a paper-based book or something.

God. The double-edged sword of social media.

Anyway, it’s really cute and it displays very clearly. I’m going to have to disable some other apps because it has those pop-up windows to notify you when something happens on facebook, myspace, twitter, msn, g-chat, etc., and THOSE pop-ups combined with my TweetDeck pop-ups, gmail pop-ups and all the other pop-ups are making my desktop a frightening, hostile place to be… Even so, it’s nice to have a single window to manage all these various programs. I think I’m sort of behind on the federated-social-media-application trend, but I thought I’d share this one in particular, since it’s cute.

I’ve shared both applications with friends, and have received positive feedback, so check it out if you’re interested!

For awhile now, I have been a member of the Facebook group “Fair Copyright for Canada,” which is administered by Geist himself (to date there are almost 60,000 members. Join! Everyone else is doing it…). It’s a great way to get some important insights about the state of legislation, and Geist is balanced in his approach. When he first got his paws on the documentation upon it’s release (formally known as Bill C-61), he blogged about the content, but reserved his judgement until he had some time to really process the implications of this bill. It took him about a half a day before he tore into the legislation to shreds and encouraging Canadians to join the mounting protest against this bill.

Before I started my MISt at U of T, I had never heard of the intellectual property debates (beyond the obligatory 18-year-old-outrage at Big Pharma and Big Music… remember Napster?). However over this past year, I’ve become more aware of the implications this, and other legislation have for my profession.

What is particularly ironic about this bill is when you consider the history of copyright law and its original intent. It began as an artifice that sought to stimulate creative culture-making in the American colonies; the Courts realized it contradicted the radically liberal ideology the U.S. was predicated on but saw it as a “necessary” evil, to ensure that authors, poets, playwright’s and the like could make a living off their creations.

In our digital age though, creativity has taken on a new face and laws should adapt accordingly; the goal of the original intellectual property laws was to invigorate the creative class and to foster cultural literacy among the citizenry. This value should be at the core of today’s legislation as well, and, as many have argued, such is not the case. Laura Murry from www.faircopyright.ca states the following:

(Imagine) you’re a librarian trying to stretch dollars by sending interlibrary loan materials digitally. Fine, the bill says, but make sure that file will evaporate automatically within five days. Not only is this requirement a technical and therefore financial burden on libraries, but it goes against their whole ethos of sharing knowledge. Librarians and teachers will be ever more confused and constrained; the kids and patrons will be ever more confused and… well maybe not so constrained. Won’t that be a pretty pickle? We could have had a clarified treatment of fair dealing, taught to kids from the getgo, which could have helped to rescue the idea of copyright.

Not such a hot option for librarians who will likely become insta-criminals should this bill pass. I can just imagine the level of creativity that will be stymied by this, and I hope you, like me, will write your MP and explain why they should quash this bill come September.

The UTE Project: The University of Toronto Libraries have launched an ambitious project: In collaboration with the University of Toronto Archives and the federated colleges, plans are underway for the launch of the University of Toronto Encyclopedia (UTE) – a comprehensive, multimedia compendium of photographic, sound, audiovisual and text entries related to the history and academic achievements of the University of Toronto. The UTE will exist entirely online in electronic form and once the Collections Team has created archival fonds, written entries, and amassed audiovisual materials, the Systems Team will begin the process of uploading the collection to the the information management system.

It is not certain, however, which information management product is best for its purposes and goals. The UTE has a mandate that places the user at its centre; that acts as a preservation tool for archival materials; and that has a spirit of continual growth – that is, the collection is constantly expanding as U of T’s history is constantly evolving. A Task Force of programmers, user services librarians and archivists has been assigned to review a host of digital repository systems to determine which is best for the UTE’s needs. The project’s modest budget has precipitated the decision to investigate open source digital repositories as a means to easing the costs a proprietary software package would present. Fedora Commons is one open source digital repository which has shown great potential for the UTE project.

Problems with Open Source: There are, however, some significant disadvantages to open source software that the Task Force must consider. Open source software systems do not benefit from the same level of responsiveness and accountability that proprietary software companies provide, should there be problems (Poynder, 2001). The Systems Team will be responsible for ensuring that staff training in the implementation and maintenance of the system becomes an on-going priority. Fedora has several support tools including a wiki and discussion boards, and has partnered with a corporate information services company called Visionary Technology in Library Solutions, to offer training and support services (VTLS 2007). By subscribing to VTLS frugally, UTE can continue to enjoy the cost advantage of open source, while still reaping the benefits of a formal Fedora support contract.

Another criticism of open source technologies is that it is accompanied by weak documentation. Because there is no contractual obligation on the part of the developers to provide an explicit manual for use, open source documentation often acts more as a general guide that lacks concise instruction (Levesque, 2005). Fedora documentation is further testament to this, with some areas lacking the specificity the Systems Team may need for complex deployments (Moynes, 2007). Consultation with the Team will determine whether training can offset this weakness.

Open Source projects are further criticized because their interface designs are created by programmers who do not consider the use patterns and knowledge of the general public. The UTE audience is comprised largely of non-technical users – the public, students and researchers – who will depend on a clear interface to effectively access information. Proprietary software companies that have both capital and a vested interest in maintaining a large user-base, will ensure that a product interface is user-friendly for the general public (Levesque, 2005). Fedora has largely overcome this challenge in an evaluative setting, and as is illustrated with projects like the Encyclopedia of Chicago and The National Science Digital Library (Encyclopedia of Chicago, 2007; NSDL, 2007; Dion et al., 2006).

Fedora and the UTE: The aim of the University of Toronto Encyclopedia is to act as an educational tool as well as an archive. Its digital format allows for expression of information in a context-rich, relational environment that understands the research patterns and knowledge of its users (Dion et al., 2006). As well, UTE will ensure that the preservation of materials into a digital format will not dramatically compromise context, but will significantly increase accessibility and preservation (ODLIS, 2006). In order to decide which digital repository system is best suited to this mandate, the Task Force will assess three key aspects of design: Usability, preservability and expandability.

The UTE is dedicated to placing the user at the centre of its mandate. This project will only prove its value if individuals can exploit its digital format to create a rich educational experience that will perpetuate a community of use, learning and participation. In measuring usability, researchers point to Fedora’s flexibility in customizing the system’s interface to suit the needs of different digital projects. As well, Fedora supports multilingual access, which is important particularly in the Canadian context (between English and French), and with regard to the increasingly multicultural make-up of the U of T community (Dion et al., 2006).

Fedora is notable for its ability to create relationships between entries, so that users can contextualize their research within a larger collection of information (Fedora Website, 2007; Dion et al., 2006). Using the Encyclopedia of Chicago website as a model, one can see the complex relationships Fedora supports between entries of varying media: A map of a Chicago neighborhood links to census information for that district, to press articles related to the district, to photographs depicting that area, and to other related maps (Encyclopedia of Chicago, 2007). This feature is an exciting prospect for the UTE Team, because of the creative possibilities it affords information management and accessibility.

Another characteristic of the UTE will be the ability to support the needs of archival materials (Dion et al., 2006). Among the literature, Fedora is acknowledged for its sophisticated approach to preservation, and has features that are unique among open source digital repositories. It allows multiple versions for a digital object. For example, maps of the U of T campus will change dramatically over time. Buildings are torn down and built, and the UTE entry for “Map of the University of Toronto” will constantly have to be updated. With Fedora’s versioning feature, however, a user can see previous versions for the same entry; that is, maps from 2005, 2002 and so forth. Another important element of preservation is the issue of technological migration. By supporting several metadata standards, including emerging schema that is normally neglected by open source digital repositories, Fedora has made significant efforts to ensure quality control through the provision of a holistic digital preservation strategy – unique among comparable products (ODLIS, 2007; Han 2004).

As the collection grows, UTE’s technological architecture must have the features to support this expansion. Once the UTE project is deployed though, the formal Systems Team will disband, and entries will be entered by a variety of faculty and library volunteers. They will not be technically proficient, so ease of expandability is paramount to the sustained success of the project. Evaluations show that Fedora does not allow for easy addition of data objects – this procedure requires knowledge of code and an ability to clearly define input parameters. Automation of such processes are minimal, and this will undoubtedly cause problems once the Systems Team is no longer available for assistance (Arms, 2000). Fedora has great flexibility in terms of the possibilities it has as an information management application, which works well for a team with in-depth knowledge of its architecture (Staples, 2007). Once again, if UTE can secure a member of the U of T community to become proficient in this program, this may not be a significant issue, and could even be beneficial as entries diversity.

Conclusions: There are many open source information management systems that have differing strengths and weaknesses depending on the mandate of those that help to create them. With a limited budget, UTE would benefit greatly from the cost-effectiveness of an open source program. Fedora is certainly a quality product that has much to offer in terms of a user-friendly front end and key technological features for digital preservation. The deciding factor in whether UTE choses this package will be the availability of technically proficient programmers who can become well-trained in Fedora and who can offer sustained support beyond production. Should the UTE Team agree to this support however, there is significant opportunity due to the creativity afforded by Fedora’s flexible foundation.

I can’t remember what the original assignment told us to do, but I basically turned it into a literature review of how people interact with wikis (a sparse topic, to be sure). This is a topic that is near and dear to me – people always get excited about implementing new technologies, but of course you have to win over people’s hearts and minds if you ever want that technology to be used. I’m facing this challenge in my work at the Library of Parliament this summer. I am creating a large e-resource that will be used by all the parliamentary librarians, and hopefully by the public as well. I’m acutely aware however, that I must conscientiously ensure that the technology is usable, but also that I show people how to use it and why they should use it. I’ll have to draw on information literacy principles to ensure that my work doesn’t go to waste simply because I ignored the most important part of it: The people using it!!

Guy, M. (2006). Wiki or won’t he? A tale of public sector wikis. [Electronic version]. Ariadne, October (49). Retrieved October 17 2007, from http://www.ariadne.ac.uk/issue49/guy/

In the article, “Wiki or Won’t He? A Tale of Public Sector Wikis”, author Marieke Guy discusses wiki technology and its applicability in the public sector. As a member of the Interoperability Focus team at UKOLN, a centre for digital information management, Guy has written many articles concerning issues of web services in the library environment for online periodicals such as Adriane and d-lib. The aim of this article is to assess wiki use in the public sector, and suggest the means to extend and improve its application.

Guy assesses the existence of wikis in the public sector – voluntary and government wikis, library wikis, and higher and further education wikis – and argues that few exhibit high levels of activity or collaboration. Despite the media hype surrounding web 2.0 applications, there is still a lack of successful usage of wikis in these professions. An article by Steven Andrew Mathieson in the Guardian Unlimited discusses increased usage of wikis in many UK state-sector organizations; however Guy’s own research suggested that in fact, most have yet to develop into significant communities of collaboration. (Mathieson 2006, Guy 2006) Despite this, she explains how wikis can be successful, warns against technical and cultural barriers, and explores two case examples of successful wikis in the public sector. Guy ends with a look to the future of wikis in libraries and e-learning.

This article’s strength lies in Guy’s discussion of possible applications for wikis in the public sector, particularly libraries. A weakness however, is the lack of greater attention to the full spectrum of challenges in implementing wiki use among non-technical users. This weakness is further exhibited by Guy’s choice of case examples which exemplify successful collaborative use among technological support departments within public institutions. For wikis to garner more support among information professionals, they must be embraced by technical and non-technical users alike. I will discuss these strengths and weaknesses, and will include further examples of implementation barriers drawn from literature regarding wiki use in public institutions.

A strong element of this article is Guy’s work regarding wikis’ varying applications. As an article featured in Ariadne, a publication aimed at information professionals, it is beneficial to have a clearer picture of wiki functions and potentiality in a library setting. (Waller, 2007) Many are used for staff development, while others function as a collaborative webpage for staff to communicate with library users. Discussion regarding the potential for wikis in information centres is also helpful for professionals seeking creative ways to utilize emerging “web 2.0” technologies; book reviews, a suggestion box and catalogue annotations are possible applications for wikis in the library environment, and Guy’s exploration of these options is important for those wanting to keep abreast of technological developments in the field.

However the study of wikis in the public sector is not complete without more discussion around the technical proficiency of public sector employees. Guy approaches this technical barrier in saying, “…there remains the fact that many people are not completely technically savvy and are still daunted by the prospect of using a tool that they are not even sure if they are pronouncing correctly”. (Guy 2006) She builds on the work of Emma Tonkin, whose article, “Making the case for a Wiki” gives a technical explanation for the various uses of wikis, the contending wiki implementations, their features and deployment issues. (Guy 2006, Tonkin 2005) However more work on the inaccessibility of technical processes and language might shed greater light on the challenges of implementing wiki technologies in the public sector. Issues around the training of employees in the functions and benefits of wikis need greater attention if they are to become an important part of collaborative tool in any professional setting.

Other work regarding the study of wiki implementation in the workplace – including publications by Da Lio, Fraboni and Leo, Davies, Fichter, and Wiebrands to name a few – discusses technical and social barriers in depth, and presents a more comprehensive picture of the dynamics that effect wiki use. A common challenge Guy fails to acknowledge is a user’s ability to learn the interface and syntax of a wiki. (Wiebrands 2006) There is a need for better aesthetic and usability with the wiki interface, and there still exists a difficulty on the part of users to understand the markup and to feel comfortable using it effectively. (Davies 2006) People are generally resistant to learning the fundamentals of this (and other) emerging technology, and will often fall back onto external programs they already use. (Da Lio, Fraboni and Leo 2005) This issue is further provoked by the fact that, to share or present information outside the wiki context, users must convert their work from the wiki syntax to a more traditional format, creating another boundary for use. (Wiebrands 2006)

Where content creation and maintenance are concerned, Guy skims some issues, but does not effectively explore the barriers users face when they are trying to write or read wiki content. There is a need, according to the body of literature, for a wiki “gardener” who will maintain and clean-up the wiki content. Without this, the wiki becomes a “confusing mess of information and ideas”. (Wiebrands 2006) However beyond content maintenance, users are hesitant to edit wiki content for fear of offending the original authors and conversely, criticism from others regarding their own work. Users have expressed frustration when what they perceived to be undesirable changes are made to their work and reluctance to write anonymously, particularly in a professional setting where credit for work can affect your professional reputation and ability to ascend a corporate hierarchy. (Da Lio, Fraboni and Leo, 2005) Guy touches on these issues by arguing that the notion of ownership runs deep in our society, and many find it difficult to change the work of others. However to ensure wikis’ success in the public sphere, the gamut of social, cultural and technical barriers must first be addressed in their entirety.

Guy’s wiki case studies are an even further testament to the need for an investigation into the technical proficiency of public sector workers. The former example uses UKOLN’s Interoperability Focus Community wiki and the later is the WebDevWiki at Bath University’s Computing Services. Both cases are drawn from technical services departments, so those involved with the wiki already benefit from a high level of technological proficiency. Those without professional experience in using these types of online tools have yet to embrace the benefits of wiki technology as fully as their tech-savvy counterparts. Guy acknowledges that, “non-technical users who want to take the initiative on creation of a wiki will usually need to do so through their systems team. Sometimes pursuing a new technology that has yet to demonstrate its worth conclusively can be difficult.” (Guy 2006) Perhaps more difficult than convincing the systems team of the benefits of wiki use, however, is the challenge of convincing other non-technical users of these benefits.

The study of wiki implementation is still in its formative stages, and research regarding the social and cultural barriers of collaborative technologies remains largely anecdotal. While Guy’s work does little to advance discussions around usability among non-technical users in the public sector, content that discusses current and potential use of wiki technologies is beneficial to an information professional seeking to implement this emerging technology in the library setting.

References

Da Lio, L., Fraboni, E., Leo T. (2005, October 18). TWiki-based facilitation in a newly formed academic community of practice. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 2005 International Symposium on Wikis, San Diego, California. Retrieved October 16 2007, from http://portal.acm.org.myaccess.library.utoronto.ca/citation.cfm?id=1104982

Davies, J. (2006). Wiki brainstorming and problems with wiki based collaboration. Unpublished master’s thesis, University of York, York, England. Retrieved from http://stu.hyes.tyc.edu.tw/plog/get/1/wiki_collaboration_and_brainstorming.pdf

Fichter, D. (2005). Intranets, wikis, blikis, and collaborative working [Electronic version]. Online, 29(5), 47-50.

Guy, M. (2006). Wiki or won’t he? A tale of public sector wikis. [Electronic version]. Ariadne, October (49). Retrieved October 17 2007, from http://www.ariadne.ac.uk/issue49/guy/

Mathieson, S. A. (2006, 22 February 2006). Public sector catches wikimania. [Electronic version]. Guardian Unlimited, Retrieved October 17 2007, from http://society.guardian.co.uk/e-public/story/0,,1714618,00.html

Tonkin, E. (2005). Making the case for a wiki. Ariadne, January (42) Retrieved October 18 2007, from http://www.ariadne.ac.uk/issue42/tonkin/

Waller, R. (2007). Ariadne: A web magazine on internet issues for librarians and information specialists. Retrieved October 18, 2007, from http://www.ariadne.ac.uk/information/#about

Wiebrands, C. (2006). Collaboration and communication via wiki: The experience of curtin university library and information service. Paper presented at the Proceedings Australian Library and Information Association 2006 Biennial Conference, Perth, Australia. Retrieved October 16 2007, from http://eprints.rclis.org/archive/00007481/

]]> http://meghanecclestone.com/2007/10/18/posting-less-than-two-hours-before-class/feed/ 2 mjecclestone