Geoffrey Bilder (2006) has noted that “every day, Internet users are pelted with spam, hoaxes, urban legends, and scams—in other words, untrustworthy data. The Internet is largely without any infrastructure to help users identify authoritative and trustworthy content. Indeed, the history of the Internet is littered with examples of how technologists have underestimated the crucial role that social trust and authority play in communication.” In a print world we have a set of reference points which allow us to define trusted brands. If we give a book to a legal deposit library, we have a view that this ensures longevity; if a book is published by a major university press, we again will have a view on the likely authority of the author, on the quality of the research; if a book is held in the university library we will have a view on its likely relevance, and so on. Although we have not exploited the fact, libraries too are a trusted brand, seen as neutral, impartial, disinterested, and helpful. On the Internet a few brands are beginning to emerge as trusted, such as Google. It will be interesting to see whether this lasts. But trust in Google has already been harmed by its apparent kowtowing to Chinese government demands to ban access to websites and by the discovery that it makes information on usage available to US security services, irrespective of the country of the user (Globe and Mail, 2008). US librarians on the other hand are very publicly rebelling against the demands of the Patriot Act to make client information available to these self-same security services, risking jail in the process (Raw Story, 2006).
The study was mainly based on primary data. In order to achieve the objectives of the study, a structured questionnaire was constructed to collect data. The study was conducted among 47 librarians randomly selected from different college libraries in India. In the present study, the main purpose of the questionnaire was to collect the data on the use of web information services by library professionals as research scholars. The data were analyzed using percentage method. The study was designed not only to capture current attitudes and patterns of adoption but also to identify researchers’ needs and aspirations, and problems they encounter. The study began with a survey, which collected information about researchers’ information gathering and dissemination habits and their attitudes towards web 2.0.
Due to innovation of internet, world wide web, information communication and technology applications usage, computerization of libraries, library networks, advancement in databases, web and libraries services, web 2.0, blogs, wikis, RSS feeds, videoconferencing, etc. the libraries are in a growing stage to either support the existing services and go for new innovative and remarkable services to the users.
It wasn’t long before I started to receive enquir- ies about the ‘project’ from other libraries. I am still taking them now, and am still struck by the amount of preparation that some libraries require from staff before a Facebook page can be launched. Library staff were (and some still are) engaged in sending out questionnaires, collating feedback, writing project proposals and sending plans to managers for approval (for example) before they go ahead. I was fortunately spared this level of scrutiny and would suggest that other libraries with similar aims should cut down as far as possible on the amount of staff time invested in preparing to do something so simple.
But what about creating a library profile on Facebook? Well, lots of libraries have done it, and apparently those who have actively promoted their account have had some success with making friends and using their account as a way to contact students. I found that out through Ning, another social software. 1 At the time that I investigated Facebook, the terms and conditions prohibited me from signing up for an account on behalf of an organisation, so I was not keen to create an account on behalf of my library. One pitfall of an official account is that you may need to have a number of staff nominated to maintain it, and those who make friends with such profiles don’t actually know who is able to then see information about them. I heard of a cautionary
The impact of web based e-learning and teaching environment has influenced very much on every facets of library and information services in Academic Libraries and providing new opportunities and challenges to the library professional. With the ascent of digital documents and digital libraries, library and information professionals’ role has expanded and challenges have increased manifold. These challenges relate to collection management, knowledge organization, digital preservation, online searching, content management, knowledge management, and promoting the use of libraries and networks. Now 24x7 access to information is available round the clock and the traditional constraints of space and time stand collapsed. Library Information Professionals have the opportunity to provide global reach to the indigenous knowledge. Similarly, we can get access to world’s knowledge and information through the Internet provided we have the will, skill, and the appropriate attitude. These opportunities and challenges can be handled effectively by competent library personnel. Sound knowledge base, pertinent skills and pro-active positive mind set are the essential components of a competent library and information professional. Conclusion :
Facebook - Facebook has been the most popular and widely used Web 2.0 applications in most of the university library websites. With a user friendly applications and interesting features, it is easy to use, even for new beginner. Most of the academic libraries use Facebook for sharing library news or events, sharing pictures as well as marketing library services. As for the Universiti Malaya Library (UML), we use Facebook for disseminating information on latest updates, opening hours, providing online reference services and also interacting with users. With this application, it will help forge relationships among users. Blog - different library websites used blog for different purposes. The uniqueness of the blog is, it allows users to comment on the post. Therefore, the percentage of usage is quite high compared to other Web 2.0 applications. For instance, Universiti Sains Malaysia library (USM) (http://hamzahsendutlibrary.wordpress.com/), Universiti Utara Malaysia (UUM) library (http://cmslib.uum.edu.my/blog/), Universiti Sultan Zainal Abidin (UniSZA) library
Blogs have started invading the library sector especially the academic library sector victoriously now-a-days. The influence of blogs on the effectiveness of libraries in reaching their online users with sufficient information or surrogates of information is evident with the explosion of library blogs in the internet at present. A blog is a frequently updated website wherein the entries are shown in the reverse chronological order. The entries may be in the form of pages, posts and links. 'Weblogs are pages consisting of several posts or chunks of information per page, usually arranged in reverse chronology' (Bausch, Haughey and Hourihan 2002:7) (1) . The Oxford English Dictionary Online defines the noun blog as, “2. A frequently updated web site consisting of personal observations, excerpts from other sources, etc., typically run by a single person, and usually with hyperlinks to other sites; an online journal or diary.” blog n. (short for weblog) The process of creating and maintaining blogs is known as blogging. The person who creates and maintains the blogs is called as ‘Blogger’.
Although an international standard, LD implementation has been an uneven and gradual process across libraries and currently still in early stages (Frederick, 2017). As Netherlands stated, starting LD implementations would benefit from governmental mandates, rather than originating from the discretion of individual institutions. Recognizing the need for LD at the national level, thus elaborating a strategy to be followed by all cultural heritage institutions, would represent a powerful incentive to SW development. In this sense, the cases of Britain and Scotland adhering to governmental policies are emblematic. This study highlighted that Scottish libraries still consider LD a niche technology, as do European national libraries. Promoting awareness of SW’s potential is a key priority in order to create wider adoption. Conferences, email lists and forums are ways to stay up-to-date with the latest developments as well as useful sources for advice. If opening data becomes a government-mandated practice, then priorities must be revised and resources must be allocated towards this goal.
Libraries were into long tails before long tails were cool. Any library stocking more than a few thousand titles (i.e. the vast majority of libraries) knows all about the long tail. In fact, most large libraries have collections that extend far beyond the utmost limits of the longest tail. In other words, many items in their collections have not been used since added. Perhaps some libraries, in an effort to boost circulation statistics, have focused too much on the heady end of their collections. Rather than cater to the clamorers for [Dean] Koontz, perhaps libraries should cultivate more long-tail usage. If the long-tail phenomenon is here to stay, perhaps the 80/20 rule (that 20 percent of the collection accounts for 80 percent of the use) will become increasingly suspect. (Peters, 2006)
The whole issue of influencing decision-makers and making the case to do so has been the subject of research in a range of disciplines. But do we have the necessary evidence of impact and value? MLA (then Resource) commissioned a review of the evidence of the impact of libraries, museums and archives currently available in a range of policy areas (Wavell et al, 2002). The conclusions of the study were disappointing: “While there is an abundance of anecdotal evidence and descriptions of best practice in the sector, extensive hard evidence of impact, gathered systematically, is often lacking.” The solution may not be more research – or at least not research carried out without an understanding of how the results might best be used to influence policy-makers. Ian Johnson and others have written in a recent article: “It seems essential to provide future researchers and practitioners with a clearer understanding of policy-making, to appreciate, for example, how the policy-making process is politicised.” (Johnson et al, 2004).
Various barriers are also being faced by the libraries all over the world such as lack of funds, deficient in technical knowledge, economic recession, inflation, etc. The review further reveals that the libraries in India are not only deficient in acquiring resources but also faces funds constraints and inappropriate infrastructure to meet the information demands of the end users. The extensive literature review does not found any new model of collaborative sharing, neither found the emergence of any new financial models for collaborative sharing. The present study indeed will go a long way to serve as a pedestal for prospect research studies in collaborative sharing and also help
According to the Grounded Theory methodologists research subjects may be identified on an ongoing basis, adding to the research population as theory emerges (Dick, 2000). Therefore, the first research subject is Wikipedia. The choice for Wikipedia as first research subject is caused by the fact that this website has a open and clear structure. It is transparent which makes it easier to research. An additional advantage is that there is already a good body of knowledge on the subject of Wikipedia. The scientific Search Engine Scopus returned 434 scientific articles involved with Wikipedia as of 27 October 2008. This is satisfactory as other sites gained about the same number of hits. That is 193 for Youtube.com, 815 for Yahoo! (which is older), 414 for Ebay, 119 for Facebook and 163 for Myspace. Also, that it is top 10 site in The Netherlands, as well as most Western countries and even world- wide, makes it a solid choice as first research subject.
Designing a programme on the shoulders of other giants was one thing. The next was to assemble a crack team of Web 2.0 enthusiasts and bloggers to develop and deliver the programme. This was reassuringly simple because of the existing exper- tise of some of our staff. This team (of Emma, Jess Humphreys, Jenny Delasalle, Samantha Johnson, Katherine Widdows, Rachel Care and Suzanne Atkins) was essential for success. Running a 23 Things programme alone would be a massive job, but with each individual in the team taking responsibility for one week’s worth of Things it became surprisingly manageable.
This compound is referenced in 20 journal articles published in the last 5 years Similar compounds are associated with the words “toxic” and “death” in 280 web pages It appears to be covered under 3 patents It has been shown to be active in 5 screens Computer models predict it to show some activity against 8 protein targets