The Ideal Library 2.0 Academic Library Web Site
What would an ideal Library 2.0 academic library Web site look like? I've been putting some thought into this, and here's what I've come up with.
In a nutshell, such a site would run on a wiki-based content management system. This system would be flexible enough to easily restrict individual pages from being edited and open up others. In addition, links to blogs would be strategically placed throughout the site to enable conversations betwen librarians and users about library resources and services.
There are some people who rightly sing the praises of the Ann Arbor District Library because its site is blog-based. However, blogs are restrictive relative to wikis in that the typical user cannot create an entry but only comment on it. In the library context, librarians are in control of their Web site content and users can only respond. This is valuable, to be sure, but in terms of radical trust (a Library 2.0 buzzword), it falls short.
So imagine an academic library Web site that does the following:
- Users participate in creating resource lists in the subject areas of their major or their research.
- Users contribute to research tips created by instruction or reference librarians.
- Users add to technical instructions for such activities as off-campus access, use of EndNote, using the library's printers, tips on working with workstation software, etc.
- Users comment on library services using the blogs linked to the pages of major services, e.g., reference, interlibrary loan, circulation, reserves, online catalog, Web site, general technology, physical plant, etc.
A Web site with this type of configuration - based on both wikis and blogs - would be a far different animal from the typical sites that libraries maintain. Currently, our sites are a one-way street. As I've said in an earlier entry, librarians control all the content even if their sites have been developed using iterative usability feedback. Such feedback is a wonderful thing, but you still end out with a site devoid of day-to-day user participation.
The technologies exist to make library sites a joint venture, in which librarians and their constituencies work together to create an online presence that hears voices from both sides of the fence. In a way, this type of site would remove most of the fence.
I'll admit this vision can be scary. I've been a library Webmaster for a decade and I can see why. There are risks and potential problems inherent in opening things up. But is this a reason not to try?
Comments
You are absolutely right Larura. There is no reason not to try. I completely agree.
Posted by: Peter Giger | October 11, 2006 01:19 PM
Cool Idea! I would stress what you said in your post: that the wiki functionality would be one in a suit of functions. Providing options, and planning which options to provide based on user need, is my favorite way of making sure that every library user will be able to find SOMETHING that meets their needs. Not every option will appeal to every user (I can't get myself to edit wikis, for example...) but no one option will appeal to everyone, either, which is why a suit of functions is needed.
Posted by: Iris | October 13, 2006 08:47 AM
Hi Laura,
I've read the interview with David Lisa about his public library's blog based website and commented, as you have, that I thought a wiki based website would be more practical. Do you actually know of any academic libraries running either blog or wiki based websites? What wiki software do you think would be robust enough to accomplish this? Finally, I love the idea, but I'm not sure how we would be able to make the site work within the framework of our university's web site template. Have you thought that through at all?
Thanks for the post.
Rhonda
Posted by: Rhonda Gonzales | November 1, 2006 01:56 PM
Rhonda,
I'm not aware of any academic libraries that are running blog or wiki based Web sites.
To my mind, the ideal site would combine a wiki engine as its centerpiece, "regular" Web pages, and blogs. Any of these can be designed to conform to external design standards, though my experience tells me that some wiki engines are more amenable to customized designs than others. MediaWiki, for example, seems pretty set in its ways, whereas this document, hosted on Wakka Wiki, has a more customized interface.
Incidentally, I am not in favor of libraries having to conform to the parent institution's Web site design standards. I've been through this scenario and it's very frustrating. Library Web sites have a very different set of goals than those of an institution's administrative offices and academic departments. However, this is another story entirely!
I can't answer outright your question about which wiki software would be robust enough to host a library's site, since I don't know your requirements. For example, sites with dynamic content served from existing databases would need to be hosted outside of the wiki engine. Wiki software can be pretty powerful. You can always set up your main page with links that point to pages that use whatever technology you need to do the job.
I recognize that what I'm suggesting could potentially be complex since it combines various publishing technologies. But running everything from a single package could make such a scenario more viable. Drupal has potential, though its collaborative publishing module doesn't look robust enough to qualify as a full-fledged wiki. It would be wonderful if there were a good selection of comprehensive open source packages for what I envision.
Posted by: Laura Cohen | November 1, 2006 07:50 PM
Your suggestions provide for a scenario where the wiki based pages provide lots of potential for user added content and interaction and yet allow the library to link out to "regular" web pages, especially for database driven content. What about a wiki with a content management system back end? We are struggling to develop the database driven web pages we want because we have a small staff and have to depend on our central campus IT dept. I'll take a look at Drupal.
Thanks,
Rhonda
Posted by: Rhonda Gonzales | November 2, 2006 10:28 AM
Just as a matter of definition, a wiki is a content management system. But I assume your question means that you'd like the part of your Web site that is not wiki-driven to be run by a content management system. I see no reason why this isn't feasible. You can link in and out of your wiki, blogs and regular pages no matter what you end out using. Which becomes the dominant, top page application would depend on your needs, and is interesting food for thought.
As I noted earlier, one challenge with this vision is the fact that you'd end out combining different systems to run your Web site rather than using a single package.
You may also want to take a look at Plone, another CMS that offers blogging plugins but does not have a wiki feature. And there may well be packages out there that come closer to this vision we're discussing, and I just don't know about them.
Posted by: Laura Cohen | November 2, 2006 01:57 PM
For a powerful, easy-to-use CMS, take a look at ExpressionEngine (http://www.pmachine.com/). It's not open source, but a very low-priced CMS that offers wiki, blog, discussion forum features (and more), in a seamless interface. It's incredibly flexible in terms of content management (custom data fields) and the templating system lets you create the design. As a web developer, it's easier for me to use EE to create websites than to create static web sites.
Posted by: Joyce | December 27, 2006 11:48 PM
As a web developer and wiki creator, I found your comments insightful and thought provoking. The 'gated community' approach is sort of the opposite of the ideals of wiki's.
Thanks for this conversation.
-ryanj
The Professional Web Developer's Wiki - http://www.ryanj.org/wiki
Posted by: Ryan Johnston | April 23, 2007 03:50 PM
Ryan, Many thanks. I hope that Library 2.0 will eventually bring an end to the 'gated-community' approach to the management of library sites. So far, this idea doesn't seem to be gaining much traction, but I keep suggesting it whenever I get the chance.
Posted by: Laura Cohen | April 23, 2007 03:57 PM
We tried "radical trust" when we allowed 24 hour hours of operation during Finals weeks for several semesters. Thousands of dollars in damage later, we're back to regular hours.
Our janitorial staff spend an inordinate amount of time right now trying to keep the bathroom walls clean...now imagine a wiki/blog where the users could comment.
Posted by: Winston Smith | May 9, 2007 02:13 PM