Assignment 1.

Encouraging the digital economy. By Roxanne Missingham.

Missinghams's article discuesses how, in order to participate in the digital economy of today, people need to become digital citizens. To do this people need to have access to digital information and libraries must play a role in facilitating this access.

While acknowledging that libraries are playing a role in the digital economy by connecting people to the digital environment, Missingham argues that not everyone has access to digital information. The reason for this is due to the "digital divide" which leads to people having a lack of access to digital information due to either geographic location or economic circumstances.

Missingham highlights a number of important issues:

A digital divide exists between the information rich cities and the information poor rural and regional areas of Australia for both individuals and library services.
With more and more information only being accessible from the internet, people need to have accessibility to digital information to make decisions that cover their lives, including education, health, law, and government.
Content and accessibility are both important factors for users and libraries. Missingham states that government content must be a priority and must be both easy to access and use.
Capability is also important for users and libraries. The ability to navigate and engage with digital resources to locate appropriate information is essential for users. This is where libraries can play a role in providing training in information literacy so users can engage better with the information content from the web. Also, online content needs to be user focus and alsos be accessible for people with disabilities.

Missingham raises some valid points in her article. As more and more information becomes digital and only accessible via the internet, then how are those who are on the wrong side of the digital divide, either due to georgraphy or economic circumstances, have access to quality information. The role that libraries play are important in this regard. It ties back to their traditional role as providers of information. Libraries, however, need to have a new focus, and that is as providers in knowing how to access and assess digital information for their users. Therefore, equipping users to be information literate is important for libraries to undertake, as it will give users the skills to better participate as digital citizens. As Preer (2008, p.212) states: "...they will need to reemphasise their role in pointing users to reliable information and educating users to become critical information consumers." Thus, libraries are still needed to connect people to appropriate sources of information.

Missingham does raise important points regarding accessing information but may be Missingham is too preoccupied with access, or, as Stevenson (2009, p.2) says, reducing the focus solely about access and not looking at resolving issues concerning social inequalities. The digital divide is a lot more than geographic boundaries. Other boundaries exist, like language, education and literacy, health, age, gender, and cognitive ability. Also, not all library networks are the same. Kinney (2010, p.114) mentions how disparities exists between library organisations and library branches, and how this can impact the accessing of digital information.

Missingham also fails to mention that today information is becoming ever more commercialised and this places many libraries, especially public libraries, in a bind. As Williams (2004, p.57) states: "Information is increasingly seen as an economic commodity, greedy multinationals stand to profit, and the information poor go without." While it is a good initiative to improve access to online information via libraries, much of that information online is controlled by companies that libraries have to negotiate with to obtain access for users behave.

While increase engagement with online information sources will mean users will have to be more information literate and this is an area that libraries can assist with. But does this apply to everyone equally? Koltay (2010, p.5) argues that different users have different literacies. The purpose of the information will be different for different users. Some may want access to information for recreation and some may want access for professional reasons. Not one information literacy program will fit all users. Also, Thompson (2007, p.90) argues that people having access to vasts amounts of information electronically may not have the ability to process large amounts of information.



Technology and privacy erosion in United States libraries: a personal viewpoint. By Martine Zimerman.

Privacy is an essential right for United States citizens, but the use of technology in libraries is resulting in privacy erosion. This is having an impact upon the daily information needs of users. Computers in libraries, whether library operating systems or public access computers, contain information in library users and the information users are accessing. How this information is protected is an issue that all libraries to comprehend.

Zimerman highlights a number of issues concerning privacy and technology:

Invasion of privacy is in many forms: cameras, sensors, military and police presence.
Personal computers have various methods in accessing people's personal information. Viruses, trojans, and worms can all be delivered by emails or unsavoury web sites.
The information on users that libraries hold can be accessed by outsiders, mainly government authorities, to ascertain what information is being accessed by users. Patron activity was seen as fair game, especially under the USA Patriot Act. Mainly, because it was revealed that the 9/11 conspirators used library computers to communicate with each other.

Does a library need to have a user's personal information so they can access information? How much personal information should that be? What type of personal information? Preer (2008, p191) argues that libraries must inform patrons on policies and procedures regarding the holding of personal identifiable information and that it is consistent with existing laws.

Should librrary technology monitor what information is being accessed by library users? Should the information collected by libraries concerning information access be available to external organisations, like government authorities or commercial organisations?

People accessing information online leave behind an information trail and outsiders can develop a picture on the types of information users are accessing and using.

Users have no control in how their information will be managed by libraries. Also, the information that users provide online can be accessed by others. Libraries with their public access computers may be unwittingly allowing this to occur. Therefore, while personal information is needed to join a library and is secured, a users can go on line from a library computer and be outside the boundaries of the library. Therefore, personal information is not protected and can be at risk. Fernandez (2010, p.100) says that privacy is a central component of librarianship but with new social networking technologies privacy is not properly defined.

When an individual signs up to a library, what type and how much information should be collected about the individual? This may depend on the resources that a users may access and use. If a users wants to access internet resources, may be a name and a date of birth is enough. However, with physical resources, like a book or audio/visual items, then a library needs contact details in case the items is late and needs to be returned.

These are important issues for libraries. In providing access to information, what information on the users do libraries collect and how should that information be protected? Many librarians believe libraries have an obligation to protect personal information. It goes to the issue of trust. If you are joining a library to access their resources and providing information about yourself, then a library organisation should be obligated to protect that personal information and not allow it to be access by third parties. Preer (2008, p.190) argues that users will feel that accessing certain information will be impeded or compromised if outsiders dissect what information users are accessing. In this evolving digital environment there may need to be a new standard for privacy protection, which enables users to decide what information they believe to be personal (Gates, 2007, p.2).

Zimerman fails to mention that people regard privacy differently. Liwin (2006) argues that different ages groups place different value on their privacy. Therefore, users will have different expectations in how their information is handled by libraries.

Zimerman only relates people's information within the boundaries of the library. Users who sign up to Web 2.0 sites provide information to the owners of the sites. As Fernandez (2010, p.104) points out, the potential threats to privacy have expanded in the digital age . This is a problem for libraries as libraries value their user's privacy ; however, libraries are allowing access to sites where privacy is not an important issue.

Zimerman does not discuss how many users do not read privacy policies of social networking sites as these policies are constantly changing. This means the context of the site and the information contained in the sites are treated as a secondary concern. As Fernandez (2010, p.105) citing Gorman (2000) states, a key to privacy is having control over personal information. Web 2.0 are there to make a profit. It is in their interest to create a space for the sharing of information that some users would like to keep private (Fernandez, 2010, p. 105).

Library 2.0 Theory: Web 2.0 and implications. By Jack M. Maness.

The growth of web 2.0 technologies is having an impact upon the role of libraries as information organisations. Libraries are changing from being static to becoming dynamic in structure. This is due to the web's interactivity and its use of online multi-media. Web 2.0 is being adopted by libraries as a way to enagage with new members and existing members, with people being able to use both synchronous and asynchronous technologies to access, use, and exchange information.

Maness highlights a number of issues:
Maness (2006, p.1) defines Web 2.0 as being interactive and collaborative using web-based technologies, resulting in the blurring between the creation and consumption of content. However, Preer (2008, p.211) defines Library 2.0 as a way for libraries to re-enhance a library's service and how it interacts with its users.
Maness (2006, p.2-3) identifies four main components of Web 2.0:
1) It is user-centred - the creation and concumption of content is dynamic.
2) It is a multi-media experience with video and audio components.
3) It is socially rich.
4) Communally innovative. Libraries have to change but allow users to change the library as well.
As more media is created by users, libraries will have the responsibility of archiving and providing access.

Maness argues that Web 2.0 technologies are challenging how libraries structure access to information. Users now have more control in interacting and using information. Users have the ability to engage with content and use it to create new content. Libraries, therefore, are becoming facilitators in the creation of new forms of information; but libraries have always been playing this role. Libraries are becoming the conduit between people and Web 2.0. Libraries must see that Web 2.0 offer opportunities for libraries to extend themselves, to go out beyond their walls to connect with their existing users and attract new users (Miller, 2005).

Maness talks about user-created content. Would any of this content be worthwhile or authoritative? Library 2.0 blurs the line between "the content and the creator, authority and novice" (Maness, 2006, p.5). Is this a good thing? Sometimes people want an authority source immediately and not having to wade through mounds of amateur material. This is what Koltay (2010, p.3) refers to when he talks about content that is created by amateurs and content created by professionals, and how libraries need to distinguish how these information sources are produced. Preer (2008, p.212) argues that in a democratised environment, easily accessible information may not be either accurate or authoritative.

Maness does not address the wider implications of Web 2.0 and the position of libraries, especially concerning various laws. Barbry (2007, p.92) discusses the impacts upon laws that are central to society, like intellectual property, freedom of speech, liability, and privacy. Where libraries and users are placed in regards to these aspects of the law is a question Maness does not address.



References:

Aabo, S. (2005). The role and value of public libraries in the age of digital technologies. Journal of Librarianship and information science. 37(4), 205-211.

Asiimwe, E.N. (2010). Opinions of social web user and online DAM. Journal of Digital Asset Management. 6, 312-318.
doi: 10.1057/dam.2010.37

Barbry, E. (2007). Web 2.0: Everthing changes...but everything is different. Communications and strategies. 65, 91-103.
Retrieved from http://ssm.com/abstract=1009136.

Fernandez, P. (2010). Privacy and generation Y: applying library values to social networking sites. Community and Junior College Libraries. 16, 100-113.

Gates, C.E. (2007). Access Control Requirements for Web 2.0 : security and privacy. Procession of workshop on web 2.0 security and privacy.

Kinney, B. (2010). The Internat, Public Libraries, and the Digital Divide. Public Library Quarterly. 29, 104-161.
doi: 10.1080/0161841003779718

Koltay, T. (2010). The web 2.0 contradiction: commercialism and library use. Library philosophy and practice (e-journal). 45.
Retrieved from http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/libphilprac/485

Litwin, R. (Ed.) (2006). Library Juice Concentrate. Duluth: Library Juice Press.

Miller, P. (2005). Web 2.0: building the new library. Ariadne. 45.
Retrieved from http://www.ariadne.ac.uk/issue45/miller/2005

Preer, J. (2008). Library Ethics. Westport: Libraries Unlimited.

Stevenson, S. (2009). Digital Divide: a discursive move away from the real inequities. The Information Society. 25, 1-22.

Thompson, K.M. (2007). Further Understanding of Information Literacy through the Social Study of Information Poverty. Canadian Journal of Information and Library Sciences. 31(1), 87-115.

Williams, K. (2004). A call to arms: what in the world is happening to information? APLIS. 17(2), 56-62.

First post!

Hello. This is my first post for this blog that I had to create as part of the assignment one task for the university subject I am undertaking at the moment, INF105 The Digital Environment. I will be posting critical reviews of the three articles that I have to read for the assignment for this blog.