Missingham, R. (2009). Encouraging the digital economy and digital citizenship. The Australian Library Journal , 386-399.

Missingham’s article covers the plight of Australian libraries banning together to facilitate and connect Australians to the open access of a broad range of electronic resources. It covers the challenges faced and overcome to initiate the ‘opt-in/opt-out’ subscription model allowing more than 8.5 million Australians access to authoritative databases through participating libraries (Missingham, 2009, p. 386).  The article also brings to light the limited access issues still experienced in rural Australia.  It is comforting to read that while these issues are still encountered there is the support and collaboration of the Electronic Resources Australia (ERA) group working for this cause (Missingham, 2009, p. 391).

Missingham states that in 2009 our understanding of what it means to be an Australian citizen encompasses participation in government and the economy via the digital environment (Missingham, 2009, p. 386). This statement clearly highlights the importance of community access to online information. It is backed by Minister Tanner who announced that it must be realised in politics that non-sensitive government information that does not breach privacy laws should be shared among Australian citizens (Tanner, 2009).

The article illustrates the challenges of being able to access the digital environment such as computer access, access to reliable content, afforable access to broadband and for some parts of rural Australia not having broadband access at all. 

It is particularly important for the education sector to have access to the digital environment and quality resources to support research needs. Missingham draws attention to the cost of subscribtions for databases and that often they can only be funded by large budgets organisations such as universities (Missingham, 2009, p. 388). 

The National Library of Australia played a crucial role in examining key issues aligned with database subscribtions and in 2007 it was agreed that an ‘opt in/opt out’ model, establishing a consortia buying group would signicantly reduce costs to benefit participating libraries and inturn offer a wider range of digital access to the public (Missingham, 2009, p. 386).

Missingham’s article emphasises the accommplishment of reducing costs of database access in public libraries and facilitating the access to the digital environment via libraries.  The article includes much statitical information but only touches on other areas such as, developling community literacy skills in order to be able to successfully negotiate the internet once accessed and further investigation is needed on how rural Australia is overcoming the issue of limited access to information both print and digital. How have we progressed in this area and what is being done to facilitate this?

Zimerman, M. (2010). Protect your library's computers. New Library World , 111 (5/6), 203-212. doi: 10.1108/03074801011044070

This article covers the subject of library security and in particular the imminent threat of library computers being under attack from a variety of computer viruses. Zimerman brings to the reader’s attention that as society has advanced in computer technology, so too has the criminal world that are continually creating new and intelligent viruses in order to obtain precious information from both individuals and companies.  This information is used to commit crime such as fraud and theft.  Not only are these viruses, known as malware, used to obtain personal and confidential information, they are also designed to severely damage your computer and its software.  In some cases the damage is irreversible.  Zimerman points out users are not safe by simply having installed anti-virus software and in fact this can give a false sense of security to a computer user leading them to believe their computers are fully protected (Zimerman, 2010, p. 203).  Zimerman goes on to say that while anti-malware products can detect some threats it may not be able to remove them or sometimes it may not even detect them at all.  Zimerman warns not to ever underestimate the capabilities of this legion of criminals (Zimerman, 2010, p. 204).

Zimerman suggests there is a number of corporate level software that may be used to protect the library’s computers however, as the cost is usually charged per computer it can be prohibitive.  A product used at Long Island University Brooklyn Campus library demonstrates a good example of virus detection.  The product , Faronics Deep Freeze, takes a virtual snapshop of the environment; each time the computer is rebooted the computer is reset back to its default condition discarding any malware that may of emerged. In addition, the University also uses anti-virus software to ensure it is adequetly covered against viruses (Zimerman, 2010, p. 205).

Zimerman identifies a number of viruses.  Trojan horses, he suggests as being the most dangerous, a virus that appears to be scanning and identifying malware on your computer while in actual fact it is entwining itself among other services running on your computer having a crippling effect, particularly if it is able to block access to Task Manager and Control Panel.  Other forms of malware identified but not familiar to most people is botnet.  Similar to other viruses in that it entwines itself in your computer, it is capable of generating spam all over the world. Most people are unaware that they are infected unless they notice their computer churning away at a time when it is not in use or the internet service provider shuts down your account for exceeding bandwidth (Zimerman, 2010, p. 207-208).

As Zimerman has titled his article ‘Protect your library’s computers’, it would be useful if he had covered recommended steps to take in securing public computers. Such tips could include setting restrictions to the Windows XP registry to stop users from changing settings or using WINSelect software that can be installed to limit the functions of applications on a public computer (Burke, 2009, p. 208).

Zimerman’s account of today’s computer viruses can be seen as a wake up call to all computer users.  Whether individual users or organisations such as libraries, the constant threat of criminal computer activity must be on the forefront of everyones mind and they must be willing to put into practice procedures and software to prevent virus contamination.  These procedures are only effective if they are regularly reviewed and updated to keep a step ahead of the criminal computer world.

Levy, M. (2009). WEB 2.0 implications on knowledge management. Journal of Knowledge Management , 13 (1), 120-134. Doi: 10.1108/13673270910931215

Levy examines the difference between Web 2.0 and KM (Knowledge Management) 2.0 as well as defining the term Enterprise 2.0 as being the implementation of Web 2.0 infrastructure.

The term Web 2.0 was first phrased in 2004 by Tim O’Reilly and Media Live International.  The phrase then caught on as it was used at several of Media Live International conferences (Levy, 2009, p. 121).  Levy goes on to explain several Web 2.0 principles being similar to those found in knowledge management principles. One such principle, active participation of users, is defined as pivotal in both KM 2.0 and Web 2.0 platforms (Levy, 2009, p. 130).  Knowledge management is often practiced by content managers, team leaders and other experts from an organisation and will usually initiate group discussions to collect and categorise information leading to strategic use of this information to benefit the organisation.  Levy explains a difference in the Web 2.0 concept is that the user is an active and willing participant and gives their personal added value by way of volunteering their knowledge, ideas and experience to content via applications such as blogging or wiki’s (Levy, 2009, p.122). Lee and Lan expand on this theory stating that Web 2.0 incorporates a two-way and interactive mechanism to enable knowledge providers (or general Internet users) to contribute knowledge contents to the shared domains (Lee & Lan, 2007, p. 50).

Levy states that knowledge management is based on the collective knowledge of its users but goes on to identify that a major difference in the collective intelligence concept is that in most cases knowledge management solutions base their findings on a mass of 20 percent of their users, contributing 80 percent of their knowledge.  Web 2.0 contradicts this principle and strives to encompass 100 per cent of users input and believes the 80 percent of users’ information that is usually ignored is a valuable commodity of information (Levy, 2009, p. 122-123). 

Lee & Lan outline a clear benefit is Web 2.0 encompassing KM concepts by its support distribution of dynamically changing knowledge as well as facilitating a global problem solving process (Lee & Lan, 2007, p. 59).  Lee and Lan go on to suggest  that a quality assurance mechanism, including the tracking of knowledge sources, are needed to be incorporated to enable Web 2.0 applications such as blogs and Wiki’s to be a trusted source of information  (Lee & Lan, 2007, p. 59).

Levy describes Enterprise 2.0, the implementation of Web 2.0 infrastructure to organisations, as experiencing scepticism by analysts, particularly on how Web 2.0 will develop in the workplace and of what value it brings to an organisation (Levy, 2009 p. 125). Case in point is demonstrated when McLean states his opinion that there is no reason to get caught up in the hype or to rush ahead with adopting Web 2.0 technologies as there is little evidence that they provide big benefits for companies in general (McLean, 2007).  Four years after McLean’s statement it is easy to see the advantages of Web 2.0 and that companies are reaping the benefits offered from the abundance of Web 2.0 applications.  Blogs and wiki’s tap into a rich source of user information and consumer wants and needs, prompting companies to produce what is requested and to improve on services according to users comments.  Previously this kind of information would take months and years of compiling and mailing out surveys and imputing data.

It is clear in 2011 that Web 2.0 applications have opened up an array of business enhancing features and as we have seen this evolution over the past 10 years, it is exciting to think of future developments with Web 2.0 and its concepts working in unity with knowledge management practice.  It is with interest that Levy notes, the first Web 3.0 applications are already here with automatic tagging as one of its features and that ideas for Web 4.0 are already being discussed (Levy, 2009, p. 125).   

Maness, J. (2006). Library 2.0 Theory: Web 2.0 and Its Implications for Libraries. Webology , 3 (2).

This article discusses the transformation of web technologies within the library environment. It describes how Library 2.0, the theory behind changes to libraries and librarians in the information age, integrates with Web 2.0 technologies to provide an innovative and high service library model.

Maness outlines Web 2.0 as having advanced from textual publications on the web, similar to reading pages from a book, to a web of multi-sensory communications (Maness, 2006, p. P. 2). The assortment of web tools being used in libraries currently supports this theory as it is common place for larger libraries to offer services such as  Instant Messaging (IM) allowing users to talk to librarians instantly from any computer, whether from within the library or a remote location, as well as library blogging used for patrons of the library, where they can follow what’s new in the library and any change to library services or as Casey & Savastinuk suggest internal blogging is a very important tool for library staff in today’s busy work place where staff no longer have a chance to catch up with colleagues and participate in social discussion as they did in past decades. Positive working relationships is crucial for staff morale, often facilitating great team camaraderie (Casey & Savastinuk, 2007 p. 78-79).

While Maness outlines many Web 2.0 applications that are improving our library services he suggests that OPAC is static and not in line with today’s Web 2.0 concept of interactive technology.  Maness’ reasoning is that OPAC requires users to undertake multiple searches for topics as it does not reply with recommendations similar to what users would receive when using a more dynamic Web 2.0 application such as Amazon.com which collects users data from past searches and uses this data when considering results for the new search item (Maness, 2006, p. 2). While this is true, some responsibility of research should still fall back to the users.  If information searches were as simple as an Amazon search, where would it lead our impressionable primary and tertiary school students who are learning and preparing their information search skills for university or the workforce?  In the not too distant future would a student merely need to type one word entries to research a topic and automatically every possible result is on their screen?  From there could the user simply use their voice recording device to dictate the text to be written in their essay and instantly the assignment is completed?  Where is the merit in this type of searching? Lynch attributes the dumbing-down of web searches to a population accustomed to Google searches. He describes a scenario where users tend to carry out one-word searches for a topic rather than searching the idea and this is a habit that needs to be un-learned (Lynch, 2005). 

While Web 2.0 technology in libraries is innovative, to be effective and a powerful drawcard for patrons it must be used in unison with the Library 2.0 concept. Maness brashly suggests that the term Library 2.0 should be only limited to web-based services and not library services (Maness, 2006, p. 3). Casey & Savastinuk’s view differs, defining Library 2.0 as a model for constant and purposeful change with libraries empowering their users through user driven services and to service current library users while reaching out to attract non-users (Casey & Savastinuk, 2007, p. 5).  If Maness’ viewpoint was to take effect, under what term would the advancement of library services, not web-based, be listed? Services such as space planning, responding to users’ needs, improving library procedures and staff training are clearly not web based but an important part of library evolution.