“Encouraging the digital economy and digital citizenship” was written by Roxane Missingham in 2009 and is based on a presentation given at the ALIA public libraries summit in 2009. Missingham is the Parliamentary Librarian at the Australian Parliamentary Library and during her career she has focused on the development and delivery of digital services. This paper discusses how Electronic Resources Australia (ERA) was established and the challenges that face providing broadband access and affordable internet access across Australia. I believe that the purpose of this paper is to bring to the attention of a wider audience the problems confronting Australia’s digital economy. The purpose of writing this review is to examine the main issues raised and to discuss the strengths and weaknesses of the article.
The digital economy is the main topic that Missingham discusses. This has been broken down into six sub-topics:
• What the digital environment means to Australians
• What you can find online
• Why do Australians need access to quality information
• What do libraries do to help Australians secure access to quality online information
• The importance of access
• Issues and barriers
From these six sub-topics Missingham makes the argument that “a digital economy can only be built by a community with digital access and digital content that supports their lives and digital skills” (Missingham, 2009, p397).
Missingham provides data taken from the “Australia’s digital economy: future directions final report” that shows that compared to the United Kingdom and Canada widespread, affordable access to broadband and internet content is not yet available in Australia. Details of how ERA was formed are also included in the article with Missingham stating that collaborative action was an important step in delivering quality information. Issues and barriers are also discussed and some solutions to these problems are offered. For example:
• Connectivity – lack of broadband access and affordable internet access remains a significant issue in Australia with only 67% of households with access.
• Content – online material needs to be comprehensive, easy to find, easy to use and consistent.
• Capability – Australians needs to have the skills to effectively use the internet. Training and user support need to be offered by libraries and the government.
“Encouraging the digital economy and digital citizenship” has many strengths that combine to make an informative and interesting article. One of the main strong points is the use of examples, references, statistics and figures to both complement and prove the argument that the author makes. Another strength is the fact that the author explains what the references mean and also adds her own analysis. This allows a reader who is not an expert in the topic to fully understand the article. The other main strength is when Missingham suggests issues and problems that face the digital economy she provides solutions or examples of what could be done to fix the problem, in preference to just stating the problem. Other strong points include easy to understand language, up-to-date information, clear headings and explanation of what is being done and what needs to be done.
When reading this article I was not able to discern any significant weaknesses that impacted on the quality of the argument. One point to consider however, is adding more detail and information on the issues and barriers that are affecting the digital economy and digital citizenship. This could be achieved by stating specific examples of how connectivity, content and capability can be barriers.
One area that has not been discussed that it is relevant to the topic is examples of how other countries created their digital economies and overcame their barriers. In order to improve this article I would add the above information as well as include further information on the issues and barriers affecting Australia.
In conclusion “Encouraging the digital economy and digital citizenship” is a well written article that refers to a wide range of resources and provides information about what is currently being done by libraries and the Government in order to increase broadband access for Australians.
Saturday, March 27, 2010
Thursday, March 25, 2010
Zimmerman, M. (2009). Technology and privacy erosion in United States libraries: a personal viewpoint. New World Library, 111(1/2), P.7-15.
“Technology and privacy erosion in United States libraries: a personal viewpoint” was written by Martin Zimmerman in 2009. Zimmerman is the electronic services librarian at the Long Island University. This article is written in the context of the American Government using technology to erode the public’s privacy. It is the author’s viewpoint that the libraries of America have been singled out for investigation, with the USA Patriot Act (USAPA) being used to target libraries.
The purpose in writing this review is to examine to main issues discussed and to consider the strengths and weaknesses of the article on the whole.
The main issue that the author raises is that the USAPA is being used to erode the privacy of citizens and to target libraries. Zimmerman gives examples of Government officials trying to force library employees to provide information on their patrons and states that library administrators show heroism and bravery (Zimmerman, 2009, p.7). The author also touches on the fact that the September 11 conspirators used libraries to communicate and alleges that this is used as a reason by the government to ‘target’ libraries.
Zimmerman then goes on to discuss ways technology can be used to erode our privacy; at home, in public and at the library. Examples of these technologies include: cameras, sensors, computer viruses and emails. The author then concludes by making the point that libraries need to be “ever vigilant in the protection of patron information” (Zimmerman, 2009, p.14).
“Technology and privacy erosion in the United States” has several strengths which contribute to the overall quality of the article. Some of these include the author referring to a large number of articles and citing examples to support his arguments. The author also shows that he has a firm conviction in the points that he is arguing by using strong language. Another strength is the clarity of the definitions and the rest of the article, with headings and paragraphs used logically.
Some weaknesses that offset the quality of the article include the author referring to only American libraries. While I recognise that the author lives and works in America, the article would have benefitted from examples of privacy erosion in the other countries. Inflammatory language is used, hoping to incite the readers into agreeing with the author’s point of view and to take a stand. Examples of this language include: “the many agencies that now watch our every move” (p.9), “as the boundaries of our privacy are attacked on all sides” (p.14), “target libraries” (p.10) and “nothing is safe anymore” (p.12). While Zimmerman uses a large number of references, he does not present any references that adopt the opposing side of the argument or that speak in favour of the USAPA. Due to this the article reads as being biased.
However due to the title stating that it is a personal view point the last two weaknesses mentioned may be forgiven because of the nature of the article. It is important to remember that this article is view point of only one man and that there may be many more views on this topic. Ways that this article could be improved involve using less inflammatory language, including details from libraries in countries other than America and presenting both sides of the argument.
In conclusion “Technology and privacy erosion in the United States: a personal viewpoint” provides an interesting look at privacy erosion in America, specifically in libraries. Further reading on this topic would need to be completed in order to receive a clear and unbiased view.
The purpose in writing this review is to examine to main issues discussed and to consider the strengths and weaknesses of the article on the whole.
The main issue that the author raises is that the USAPA is being used to erode the privacy of citizens and to target libraries. Zimmerman gives examples of Government officials trying to force library employees to provide information on their patrons and states that library administrators show heroism and bravery (Zimmerman, 2009, p.7). The author also touches on the fact that the September 11 conspirators used libraries to communicate and alleges that this is used as a reason by the government to ‘target’ libraries.
Zimmerman then goes on to discuss ways technology can be used to erode our privacy; at home, in public and at the library. Examples of these technologies include: cameras, sensors, computer viruses and emails. The author then concludes by making the point that libraries need to be “ever vigilant in the protection of patron information” (Zimmerman, 2009, p.14).
“Technology and privacy erosion in the United States” has several strengths which contribute to the overall quality of the article. Some of these include the author referring to a large number of articles and citing examples to support his arguments. The author also shows that he has a firm conviction in the points that he is arguing by using strong language. Another strength is the clarity of the definitions and the rest of the article, with headings and paragraphs used logically.
Some weaknesses that offset the quality of the article include the author referring to only American libraries. While I recognise that the author lives and works in America, the article would have benefitted from examples of privacy erosion in the other countries. Inflammatory language is used, hoping to incite the readers into agreeing with the author’s point of view and to take a stand. Examples of this language include: “the many agencies that now watch our every move” (p.9), “as the boundaries of our privacy are attacked on all sides” (p.14), “target libraries” (p.10) and “nothing is safe anymore” (p.12). While Zimmerman uses a large number of references, he does not present any references that adopt the opposing side of the argument or that speak in favour of the USAPA. Due to this the article reads as being biased.
However due to the title stating that it is a personal view point the last two weaknesses mentioned may be forgiven because of the nature of the article. It is important to remember that this article is view point of only one man and that there may be many more views on this topic. Ways that this article could be improved involve using less inflammatory language, including details from libraries in countries other than America and presenting both sides of the argument.
In conclusion “Technology and privacy erosion in the United States: a personal viewpoint” provides an interesting look at privacy erosion in America, specifically in libraries. Further reading on this topic would need to be completed in order to receive a clear and unbiased view.
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.
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.
You can never have too much knowledge. (2009). Information Outlook, 13(8). P.10-13
The article “You can never have too much knowledge” by Larry Prusak discusses the future of information in businesses, libraries in general and special libraries in specific. Prusak who was interviewed by Information Outlook in 2009 is a consultant for organisations on knowledge and learning. The purpose of writing this review is to examine the author’s view, the issues that are discussed, to explore the strengths and weaknesses of the article and to recommend improvements.
The main point that I believe that Prusak tries to make is on the difference between information and knowledge. He describes this as “knowledge is what a ‘knower’ knows, whereas information is represented knowledge” (Prusak, 2009, p.). Other points discussed include the idea that there can be too much information but there can never be too much knowledge. In addition to this Prusak makes the argument that the cost of an information transaction has dropped resulting in information professionals needing to become knowledge professionals to stay relevant in their chosen field. Prusak continues by stating that for an information centre to become a knowledge centre there needs to be a focus on finding people who know things rather than on finding documents. The article goes on to explain that people learn from one another through interaction and stories and that the librarian needs to encourage this. Prusak ends the interview by expounding his belief that organisations are better off connecting people than capturing material and that the real advantage lies in using knowledge more innovatively.
In order to consider whether or not Prusak was able to make his point effectively the strengths and weaknesses of the article need to be discussed. This article has many strengths, some of which include the informal language and structure of the interview format, which allows for the easy reading of this article. This article is also written in a manner that makes it very easy for someone who has little to no knowledge about the subject to understand. When examining the difference between information and knowledge Prusak uses simple metaphors to explain his point of view.
However this article also has several shortcomings that detract from the information provided. These include a lack of evidence to support the arguments that Prusak makes. The author does not refer to any statistics, data or additional articles, and while his thoughts and opinions are still valid, supporting references are valuable in any article. Due to the interview format Prusak did not expound on certain points that could have benefitted from a more thorough discussion. When considering the idea that there can be too much information Prusak could have touched on the librarian’s role in providing this information and what their responsibility is in refining the information into knowledge. Another area that could have elaborated on is what special librarians can do to be seen as essential in their communities. Prusak provides only three ideas and does not go into detail, nor provide any case studies or references as evidence.
In conclusion, while I agree with the main points raised in this article, the lack of evidence such as references and case studies detracts from the reliability. Other articles, such as “What are we managing – knowledge or information?” by Shashi Prahba Singh also provide an overview of information and knowledge management as well as going into further detail and using evidence; making them the preferred reference.
REFERENCES
• Singh, S.P. (2007). What are we managing : knowledge or information? Vine : the journal of information & knowledge management systems. 37(2) p169-179.
The main point that I believe that Prusak tries to make is on the difference between information and knowledge. He describes this as “knowledge is what a ‘knower’ knows, whereas information is represented knowledge” (Prusak, 2009, p.). Other points discussed include the idea that there can be too much information but there can never be too much knowledge. In addition to this Prusak makes the argument that the cost of an information transaction has dropped resulting in information professionals needing to become knowledge professionals to stay relevant in their chosen field. Prusak continues by stating that for an information centre to become a knowledge centre there needs to be a focus on finding people who know things rather than on finding documents. The article goes on to explain that people learn from one another through interaction and stories and that the librarian needs to encourage this. Prusak ends the interview by expounding his belief that organisations are better off connecting people than capturing material and that the real advantage lies in using knowledge more innovatively.
In order to consider whether or not Prusak was able to make his point effectively the strengths and weaknesses of the article need to be discussed. This article has many strengths, some of which include the informal language and structure of the interview format, which allows for the easy reading of this article. This article is also written in a manner that makes it very easy for someone who has little to no knowledge about the subject to understand. When examining the difference between information and knowledge Prusak uses simple metaphors to explain his point of view.
However this article also has several shortcomings that detract from the information provided. These include a lack of evidence to support the arguments that Prusak makes. The author does not refer to any statistics, data or additional articles, and while his thoughts and opinions are still valid, supporting references are valuable in any article. Due to the interview format Prusak did not expound on certain points that could have benefitted from a more thorough discussion. When considering the idea that there can be too much information Prusak could have touched on the librarian’s role in providing this information and what their responsibility is in refining the information into knowledge. Another area that could have elaborated on is what special librarians can do to be seen as essential in their communities. Prusak provides only three ideas and does not go into detail, nor provide any case studies or references as evidence.
In conclusion, while I agree with the main points raised in this article, the lack of evidence such as references and case studies detracts from the reliability. Other articles, such as “What are we managing – knowledge or information?” by Shashi Prahba Singh also provide an overview of information and knowledge management as well as going into further detail and using evidence; making them the preferred reference.
REFERENCES
• Singh, S.P. (2007). What are we managing : knowledge or information? Vine : the journal of information & knowledge management systems. 37(2) p169-179.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)