Maness, J. (2006). Library 2.0 theory: web 2.0 and its implications for libraries. Webology, 3(2).

The article “Library 2.0 theory: web 2.0 and its implications for libraries” was written by Jack M. Maness. This article suggests a definition for library 2.0 and examines the idea that web 2.0 will have a substantial impact on libraries. The author focuses specifically on how synchronous messaging, blogs, wikis, RSS feeds, tagging, mashups, social networks and streaming media affect the provision of library resources. “Library 2.0” was written in 2006 when this technology was not yet ubiquitous and when some libraries were still struggling to adopt simple web 1.0 services (Breeding, 2006).
The purpose of this review is to examine the author’s viewpoint, to consider the important issues discussed and to analyse the article and recommend improvements.

Library 2.0 is defined as “the application of interactive, collaborative and multi-media web-based technologies to web-based library services and collections” (Maness, 2006), basically meaning that the online presence of the library needs to interactive for the user and use many different forms of technology. Maness states that Library 2.0 has four essential elements:
• User centred – users participate in the creation of content and services.
• Provides a multi-media experience – The collection and services contain video and audio components.
• Socially rich – The libraries web presence includes web 2.0 technology as a way of communication, for example: synchronous messaging and wikis.
• Communally innovative – Library needs to continually change its services to allow for new ways of searching and using information.

The other important topic discussed is web 2.0 technology in its different forms. Maness states that synchronous messaging and streaming media, such as RSS feeds are two of the most prevalent forms used by libraries at this time (Maness, 2006). In addition Maness acknowledges that blogs and wikis are among the quickest and easiest ways for libraries to incorporate web 2.0 technologies into their services. Tagging, which allows users to create subject headings for items in the libraries catalogue is also discussed. This would enable users to search under both standardised and tagged subject headings, thus making the search process more interactive.
The author also examines mashups and states that “Library 2.0 is a mashup, a hybrid of blogs, wikis, streaming media, content aggregators, instant messaging and social networks (Maness, 2006).

“Library 2.0 theory: web 2.0 and its implications for libraries” has on the whole more strengths than weaknesses. Some of these strengths are:
• The use of references to support statements and arguments made.
• A coherent layout, with the use and headings, clear paragraphs and a logical order of information. For example, the author provides a background to web 2.0 and library 2.0 before starting to address the technologies.
• Discusses all main web 2.0 technologies and provides examples of their uses.
• Provides detail about all of the main points without making the information too technical.
The main weakness that I discerned is that the author does not refer to any specific library using web 2.0 technologies except for in one instance, instead referring to the “library community” in general. I see this as a weakness because it would be helpful to the reader to know which libraries are integrating this technology.

In conclusion this article provides a clear definition of web 2.0, library 2.0 as well as an overview of the technologies used in both. Ways to improve this article include discussing other relevant topics such as ways in which libraries can implement web 2.0 technologies into their services.


REFERENCES

• Breeding, M. (2006). Web 2.0? Let’s get to web 1.0 first. Computers in libraries, 26(5), p30-33.