Artikel über Bibliotheksbenutzer 2.0

In der aktuellen Ausgabe des Bibliotheksdienstes (1/07 [Inhaltsverzeichnis als PDF]) ist ein sehr interessanter Artikel von Regine Schmolling über „Neue Kommunikationsformen mit den Bibliotheksbenutzern 2.0 der Universität: Integration von Bibliotheksinformationen und Schulungsangeboten in das Kursmanagementsystem StudIp“(s. 22-33) in dem der Artikel „Bibliothek 2.0 die Zukunft der Bibliothek“ von Lambert und mir mehrfach zitiert wird. Es freut eine Diskussion über das Thema angestoßen zu haben. Frau Schmolling hebt auch noch mal besonders die Web 2.0 Probleme zum Thema Privatsphäre heraus in dem sie über StudiVZ berichtet. (Einen Überblick zum Thema StudiVz erhält man sehr gut in dem Heise Artikel von Anfang der Woche). Ebenso wie der kritische Artikel in netbib heute.

Kleiner Wehrmutstropfen der Artikel wird erst in drei Monaten online verfügbar sein, wenn die offizielle Speerfrist des Bibliotheksdiensts endet.

Library 2.0 und Bibliotheksgebäude

Über die Auswirkungen von Library 2.0 auf den Biblioheksbau geht es in der aktuellen Ausgabe des Talking with Talis Podcast:

In this Library 2.0 Gang discussion, we talk about the changing role of the library building in delivering a range of services. As more material moves online, and as a growing number of those using library services are remote from their physical library, how do we adapt the services that are offered, and how do we transform the buildings for the 21st century?

[via Talking with Talis]

Einen kurzen Kommentar dazu gibt es bereits von Ben.

Library 2.0 im Jounal “Computers in Libraries”

Die neuste Ausgabe ( Vol. 27, Iss. 1.) des Journals „Computers in Libraries“ widmet sich dem Thema Library 2.0 in mehreren Artikeln, wenn jemand die Artikel online findet würde ich mich über eine Nachricht freuen.:

Chase, Darren (2007). „TranSfOrmatiVe Sharing with Instant Messaging, Wikis, Interactive Maps, and Flickr“. :

The new face of my library is transparently interactive. Collaborative Web tools, including wikis, instant messaging, and social networking sites, have transformed our reference services, staff intranet, and interactions with users and stakeholders. Along the way, these tools have created a new face of usability for the library. We all know that transformation can be scary, and new faces are not always welcome.

Huwe, Terence K (2007). „Surfing the Library 2.0 Wave“:

There’s an ocean full of metaphors we can use to help us grasp the opportunities arising from „everything 2.0,“ but I have a favorite-surfing. Surfing sounds great, but requires skills that „hodads“ may not have thought about. There are wipeouts galore, courage is required, and most of all, staying in synch with a moving target requires the ability to focus. So in thinking about 2.0 stuff, I’ll stick with my surfing metaphor, knowing that all of us have plenty of career experience ending up in the white water.

Balas, Janet L (2007). „eLearning About Library 2.0“:

Librarians are feeling threatened from all sides these days, from the Internet with its promise of quick and easy answers to every imaginable question to commercial establishments such as Borders that offer ambience and refreshments alongside the books. Then there is also the perception of stodginess that clings to us, the perception that librarians look only to the past, resisting change until forced to accept it. Librarians seek to counter these threats and dispel their stodgy image, sometimes in an almost frantic manner, by rushing to keep up with the latest trends in technology and society.

Coombs, Karen A. (2007). „Building a Library Web Site on the Pillars of Web 2.0“:

Update: Von Anne gibts eine kurze Zusammenfassung des Artikels bei netbib.

A year and a half ago when I started as the head of libraries’Web services, the University of Houston (UH) Libraries was undertaking a project to dramatically reshape its Web site. The site had been in a state of flux and it needed a new structure for both managing and organizing it. At the time, all content was passed through the Web services department before becoming part of the site. As a result, making updates was a time-consuming task and significant portions of the site were out-of-date. In addition, the site’s structure was rigid and inflexible and provided no space for staffer users to participate.

[via Enger 2.0]