Blog Me a Story

This happens to me every semester (see last semester’s rant for reference). I go to class, soak up all these interesting, original and important ideas, then I go back into the “real world” of libraries, and get very discouraged.

As an avid user of the social web, I highly advocate that libraries make their presence available on the web in a variety of ways. At my medium sized library, we’ve done a pretty good job recently of trying to expand our presence. For example, we’ve recently redesigned our website with the intention of making it more user-friendly (less library jargon) and we’ve added blogs for youth, teens and reader’s advisory. Soon, our consortium plans to overlay our existing catalog with Aquabrowser, which allows for many “Amazon-style” functions, such as user-tagging, reviews and ratings.

One of the aspects of Library 2.0 which Michael referenced in his talk is that libraries need to trust their users. John Blyburg states that libraries must content with the question of “authority” when it comes to the user. With our new catalog, users will be given the “authority” to tag records and to write reviews. But how does this question of trust play out in the physical library?

Recently, I was asked to keep an eye on a patron who was thought to have viewed “inappropriate content” on the computers in the children’s area. I’m not generally comfortable monitoring patron’s activity on the internet; indeed, to me, such monitoring infringes on privacy.

So what is the balance between insuring patron safety and infringing on user’s rights?

Another issue at our library recently has been extensive problems with graffiti and vandalism. The problem has gotten so bad that the library has decided to lock the bathrooms. Patrons must ask for a staff member to buzz them in. Michael Stephens says that a librarian 2.0 “does not create policies and procedures that impede users’ access to the library,”but which is worse: having to ask to use the restroom, or the possibility of facing human waste on the walls when you walk in.

If we trust users to comment on blog posts and to tag the catalog, shouldn’t we trust them to use the library’s resources appropriately? Is this too naive? How does Library 2.0 play into these issues?

No real answers here, just lots of questions. Hoping you all have thoughts to help me clarify my thinking.

Fellow Reference Librarians,

About a year ago, we began offering reference service via Instant Messaging services like AOL, MSN and Hotmail. This has proved to be a popular service, with teens and adults able to ask questions while they surf the web and get immediate responses. Recently, I have become aware of a tool that would help us offer our Instant Messaging service to more users in more places, as well as making the task of checking and responding to those messages easier for the reference staff.

Meebo is an online service that allows users to tap into all their Instant Messaging accounts at once. Messages from friends on Yahoo Messenger and AIM pop up in the same window. Not only that, but there is no need to download a program to run it. It operates directly in the browser window. Meebo also offers a few embeddable applications that can be placed on any blog or website, including MeeboMe, which places an IM box on a webpage. I believe that Meebo and MeeboMe could enhance library service in three ways.

First, we should recommend Meebo to patrons using library computers. Currently, settings on the library computers prohibit patrons from downloading or installing progr ams. This protects our computers from viruses, but also prevents patrons from being able to use traditional IM services which require a program be loaded on the computer. This is not an issue with Meebo. A public library in Vermont made these posters to encourage users to IM using meebo. Patrons who learn about Meebo at our library can also use the site to chat at other places were instant messaging is restricted, such as school or work.

Secondly, the reference staff can use Meebo to log into all of our IM accounts at once and respond to instant messages. There are many IM aggregators available, but Meebo is free and very easy to use. Many of the librarians who responded to this Meebo blog post use Meebo to control their virtual reference transactions. Recently, Firefox teamed up with Meebo to offer a Meebo Firefox add-on. This post by Aaron Schmidt, an expert on technology for librarians, discusses the benefits of using this add-on.

Third, we could use MeeboMe to install a virtual reference portal right on our webpage. Users who do not have an instant messaging account or those who stumble across us on the web could use the widget to contact a librarian during business hours. When the library is closed, the widget allows patrons to “leave a message” on the website for a librarian to respond to later. Many libraries are using a MeeboMe widget on their webpage, such as Park Ridge Public Library and Villa Park Public Library. Some libraries are even starting to use MeeboMe on the “no results” screen in the catalog. This is a great way to connect to users at their point of need.

Of course, all technologies or applications are fallible, and Meebo does have a few problems. This tutorial by California State University points out that Meebo does not allow the librarian and the user to look at the same site at the same time (called cobrowsing) or keep transcripts or statistics of reference transactions. Meebo is working to overcome some of these challenges, and transcripts are available for some of Meebo’s more recent applications. However, I believe that the benefits of Meebo (simple, universal and free) outweigh the downsides and that adding Meebo and MeeboMe to our arsenal of reference tools would help the library reach out to more users in more places.

This is a continuation of the question I asked in class about privacy and, to a certain extent, a segue from Laura’s post on Internet Privacy and Social Networking tools.

When Michael told us about imagechef I was immediately drawn to the campaign button. In this time of wall-to-wall primary coverage, I have found ways to make good use of it.

Last week I made a fun button with a message about a political party supporting a certain Harry Potter villain. I had it as my work desktop picture for about 24 hours before I decided to change it. Why?

First, I was tired of trying to cover it up every time one of my co-workers from the other side of the political spectrum came along. And second, I didn’t think it was very professional. I’m a librarian (in training) and I lead people to the information they need without personal agenda or bias.

So I joined Facebook the other day. My sister’s been bugging me to and seemed a good way to waste time experience Web 2.0 and social networking.

I’m filling out my profile, and they have a place for me to list my political and religious affiliations.

Normally, I’m not a person whose shy about sharing their opinion, even about these hot button topics. But as a future information specialist, I gave the questions pause.

Is it appropriate for me to post my personal and political beliefs where patrons may view them? Do the old rules of issue neutrality still apply in the Social Web?

I’m very new to Social Networking and don’t know the secret handshakes as yet. What do others think?