Blast from the Past: My presentation on "Web 2.0 & library services to young adults: An introduction"

Yikes. This is a really late post. Back in June 2011, I gave a presentation at the 5th National Library for Children & Young Adults Symposium, 2011, South Korea. The symposium was held at Duksan Resom Resort, South Korea.

OK, so this is a "blast from the past" post then.

Here's my presentation, which was an update and also an extension of this 2009 IFLA document of the same title. The organisers found that document and wanted me to present a condensed version.

Web 2.0 & library services to young adults: An introduction

View more presentations from Ivan Chew.

It might have sounded easy. Just reduce the original 78-pages to 30mins and deliver what's in the paper, right?

Umm, that would bore the heck out of me if I were the audience. So while in the plane to Seoul, I was still thinking about how to deliver the 30min talk. I wanted to be able to "tell a story" in a practical way. So I delivered what one of the delegate described later as a "workshop-style" talk.

The essence of my talk was how a Web 2.0. approach and mindset could be applied to librarians serving teens. But the presentations I enjoy are those that "told a story". And in the end, after brainstorming with a colleague, I did just that. I shared what I thought was a possible "day in the life of" a Teens Services librarian, straddling between online and offline engagement efforts.

My ego received a little boost when I was told it was like a TED talk. Heh.

It was also the first time I presented using an iPad. It was a calculated risk, as I've not delivered a talk using the iPad. I'd seen it used as a presentation tool but never actually used it. I rehearsed in the iPad, mentally went through backup plans. Arranged to test the iPad connection with their presentation equipment the day before my speaking slot. Phew, it worked beautifully.

So much so that I was confident enough, by then, to even take a "live" picture of the attendees. I directed my iPad camera towards them as the iPad was hooked up to the projector. The audience saw their "live" video capture on screen. Neat (it worked to start the 'show', as I could see the attendees smiling and being amazed -- and South Koreans were pretty IT-savvy folks!)



What was new for me as a presenter was having a simultaneous translation (in Korean) of my talk. Luckily, I chatted with the translators the day before. They advised me that I should just deliver my talk normally, as in I should not try to wait for them to catch up between words. It was easier for them if my pace of speaking was consistent (not too fast nor too slow). I did what they advised and it worked well. Trust the experts, I say!

In preparing for my talk, I had excellent help from Daryl Tay, who pointed to this excellent source of information on Digital Media stats in South Korea (I understand it was initiated by Prof Netzley).

I also got in touch with Creative Commons contacts in South Korea, who gave me a concise background on the social media and IP scene in South Korea. Not directly applicable in my talk in the end, but gave me that additional layer of verification and background information.

My Facebook post also drew several good suggestions from friends (rats, I can't seem to find that Facebook thread).

Here's a very nice quote from Shel, that I didn't get to use at the presentation:


I had a fantastic time. The South Korean organisers were (famously) excellent hosts and the programme was also one of the better ones I've attended.



Related post:
Your ideas on "Using social media as part of library services for Children or Teens", 1 June 2011.

What others shared: Their ideas on ideas on using social media as part of library services for Children or Teens

[From this earlier post]

Thanks for the responses, people!

"We are having our teen advisory groups make videos that we post on blogs, facebook and Twitter. I am sure thus isn't anything new though." ~ Jessica, who works for Seattle Public Library.

[I quickly commented that it wasn't necessary to be new or earth shaking. Being consistent and being genuine in engaging customers were more important]

"you can make them post impressions of what they read on facebook. It helps to introduce others to particular books and rate them. When I go to the library, I see shelves of books that might not be good to read rather than shelves of books that may be good to read. Maybe if there is a rating system using social media, it might help." ~ This was from my band-buddy, Adrian (a teacher and a biologist). I think his comment about "seeing shelves of books that I might not like to read" was something worth looking into.

"Maybe this is already done. Set up target group specific twitter alerts. For example for pre-school kids, encourage parents to follow "twitter tots" for updates on bks suitable for their kids" ~ From Mui Lin, an ex-colleague of mine and now a stay-at-home mommy. She also adds:

"I'm a SAHM, am planning to set up a book club in the online forum that I'm a member. What prompted me to do this is I'm stressed out looking after my 3 young kids and want to reach out to other parents who love to read. We do not need to meet and can share anytime of the day :). Not sure how it will work out or if anyone will join" [I think she should just give it a go! :)]

"Make catalogue.nlb.gov.sg facebook friendly. You have almost the entire population of kids on facebook (short of a couple of non-facebookers). Tag a discussion board to the end of the listing and allow posting by people. Policing the discussion boards would be a challenge but I don't see how technology can't overcome it." ~ from Say Hong. [Hmm... nice idea; the online catalogue is probably the most visited page/ site of the library so it makes a lot of sense to make it more social]



What's interesting for me was that in all their ideas, there's a strong social element and about people-to-people-to-content connections. There's also implied or explicit roles for the librarians.

It's also about simplicity.

It's definitely less about the tech.

Thanks again, people!

My 2009 'Social Media' related publications in IFLA and Emerald

Two of my professional publications, relating to social media, that were accepted and published in 2009.

1) Title: Librarians 2.0: sowing padi in (the) SEA.
Publisher: Emerald Group Publishing Limited - LINK.

This came about from my speaking at the Bridging Worlds conference organised by NLB in 2008. After the conference, my paper was selected by Emerald for consideration. It was accepted and published in their special conference issue.

Abstract:

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to present an exploratory survey as part of a presentation for the Bridging Worlds 2008 conference. It seeks to understand how library institutions in the South East Asia (SEA) region have implemented Web 2.0 technologies – blogs, RSS feeds, wikis, or the use of services like Flickr, YouTube, de.lici.ous.

Design/methodology/approach – Libraries surveyed were in: Hong Kong, India, Indonesia, Japan, Malaysia, People's Republic of China, Philippines, Singapore and Taiwan. The survey relied on references in published papers, internet searches and personal contacts.

Findings – The survey found that more academic libraries than public libraries were using Web 2.0. technologies. Blogs and RSS feeds were the most common. Blogs were used mainly as web publishing tools rather than as a means to engage library users.

Research limitations/implications – The survey is not comprehensive. The search relied mainly on English publications and keywords, while the native language of most countries surveyed was non-English. Future research could comprehensively cover each country, by the type of library or language.

Practical implications – The paper contends that Web 2.0 does not rely on technology, but more on practice and participation. The emphasis should be on relationships rather than transactions. Suggestions are offered on how libraries can adopt a Library 2.0 mindset without focusing on technology. A call is made to establish an East Asian Librarians 2.0 directory.

Originality/value – The paper offers a non-technological perspective to institutions and practising professionals who are reviewing their Web 2.0 implementation.

2) Title: Web 2.0 and Library Services for Young Adults: An Introduction for librarians.
Publisher: IFLA, Libraries for Children and Young Adults Section.
78 pages, PDF - LINK

As explained here, this came about because on the last day of my 2008 speaking trip in Croatia, Dr. Ivanka Stricevic asked if I could write -- at least 22-pages (double-spaced, Times Roman 12) -- on how librarians can use social media in serving Young Adults. It was to be written in English, for translation into Croatian.

My final draft was a whopping 78 pages. Thankfully, Ivanka didn't ask for it to be edited down after she read it.

BTW, the copy published at the IFLA Libraries for Children and Young Adults Section page is under a CC-BY-NC-SA 3.0. license.

[Excerpt from the Introduction]
"The document is an introduction for librarians new to Web 2.0 and Social Media, and who are interested in using publicly accessible social media tools to serve Young Adults in any types of libraries: public, school, special or academic.

The aim is for you—the practicing librarian--to understand and ultimately decide for yourself what is the best approach in using social media as part of your Young Adult service. This document does not dictate the best way to attract teens to your library (there is none!)

For each section, we will cover the "What is it" and "How to use it" so that you know "Why use it" and "What to look out for in using it". With the focus for practitioners, specific services are also elaborated."


CONTENT PAGE

P2. Introduction

• Why Web 2.0 and Services to Young Adults?
• Managing risks
• Web 2.0 + you and your library
• More about this document
• Terminologies used in this document
• Disclaimer

P7. Acknowledgments
P8. Blogs and Blogging
P14. Online Chat, Instant Messaging and Video-conferencing
P18. Creative Commons
P24. FaceBook
P28. Flickr
P32. Google Docs
P37. Music & Audio
P40. MySpace
P43. Podcasts & Podcasting
P47. RSS & RSS Readers
P53. Slideshare
P56. Social Bookmarking
P61. Twitter
P65. Video
P68. Virtual Worlds & Machinima
P73. Wikis
P76. Conclusion

• Which tool is most suitable, and how much time would it take to learn?
• The “Art of Social Networking”

P77. Appendix

• Web 2.0 and Library 2.0, in brief
• A suggested approach when adopting Web 2.0 tools

Defusing "traditional arguments against letting go of content"

This presentation by Michael Edson, Director of Web and New Media Strategy for the Smithsonian Institution, speaks for itself (thanks to Hazman for the alert).

Click on the word "Next" in the Flash presentation:

[source: usingdata.typepad.com/usingdata/2009/03/web.html]

I was on a panel titled Online Communities and The Institution chaired by Nina Simon of Museum 2.0 with Shelley Bernstein, Chief of Technology at the Brooklyn Museum and Deanna Marcum, Associate Librarian of Congress for Library Services.

Nina wanted us to be provocative and I thought this might be the time and place to, as @ulotrichous (Eli Neiburger from Ann Arbor Public Library) said, defuse "traditional arguments against letting go of content." I was a little worried about the presentation. I thought that either I was being too harsh in caricaturing those who have reservations about online content, or that Webwise attendees were already past objections like "if we put content online nobody will come to our museum/library/archive."

Far from the case apparently.

Nice.

More at Michael's post.

Part 3 - Drafting a "Web 2.0 + Young Adult services primer for librarians"

[From Part 2]

Sent the final draft to Ivanka yesterday night. Just checked my email this evening and she came back with some corrections. I made the changes on my master document and emailed it off.

Mission accomplished!

My task was to write at least 22 pages (Times New Roman, Font 12, 1.5 para spacing).

Final result: 78 pages, excluding the cover page (even if it was reduced to font size 10, it's still about 60+ pages).



When I did my Masters nine years ago, the thesis requirement was 10,000 words. So does this document constitute one? LOL

The plan is for this document to be published as a IFLA professional report (like this Guidelines for Libraries serving Young Adults). I say "plan", just in case it might not get published (I guess I'm managing my expectations here, heh).

If you wish to take a look at the draft, I'd be happy to send you a PDF copy.

Part 2 - Drafting a "Web 2.0 + Young Adult services primer for librarians"

[From previous post]

After thinking about it, I decided to start a wiki for the draft.

It's at web20-libraryservices-ya.wikispaces.com



I figured it would be OK for me to make the draft public, since a precedence has been set before.

Besides, there's a certain aptness to using a Web 2.0 tool, to draft a document about using Web 2.0!

My real concern was about working on both a draft at the wiki and on documents I'd saved on my computer. E.g. duplicating work and/ or getting updates mixed up.

I solved that dilemma by working on the wiki only.

As a backup, I exported the entire wiki to my computer.

The advantage of working on the wiki was being able to create and see the entire structure of the document. And I could easily shift text around (e.g. moving parts of the text from the introduction to the appendix).

I could also write To-Do notes for myself (just using the discussion page creatively).

It was also an efficient way to invite others to read the draft (e.g. send a URL rather than send as email attachment). Especially if they and I were on Chat.

Realised there are more benefits: Sending the URL with my periodic email progress updates meant that the person receiving my updates don't have to deal with pesky attachments and getting confused in the process. Especially the "please ignore previous email; here's the latest update" situations.

Plus, the receiver can make changes direct to the pages.

[Incidentally, creating this wiki made me ask the question: "When do I use a Wiki or Google Docs", heh. I added that part to Preetam's write-up.]

Only disadvantage/ risk was the connectivity to the Internet. A slow connection would cause delays to the editing. If the site goes down and I've not exported the updated versions, that'll really mess things up for me. Luckily that didn't happen.

Besides, I've used wikispaces.com for some time now (since this social experiment, which is still on-going). It's been reliable so far. And I know it well enough to use it confidently (contingent plans and all).

My deadline is 28th Dec. I'm about 90% complete for the draft, barring any major changes (I hope not!)

[Part 3]

Drafting a "Web 2.0 + Young Adult services primer for librarians"

On a whim, I posted this status update at my Facebook account yesterday:



In case you can't see the image, my status said: "Ivan is writing a Web 2.0 + Young Adult services primer for librarians."

Within minutes, Isaak commented: "Need any help?"

Soon followed by another Facebook contact Kelvin, wrote: "Interesting - will you be making it available on your blog?"

Then today, Ivy commented: "I thought you are finally writing your own book! I'm looking forward to reading it."


Telling the world about your "status"
Thinking about it, I realised posting a status message about what I was doing (thinking or feeling) isn't a frivolous activity at all.

It's a way to de-stress (you have to try it to believe it!)

Also, it's an indirect way to seek inputs from others. Subconsciously, I'd hoped some people would offer to help.

This also turned out to be a nice way of illustrating the point of using social media for professional work, doesn't it? : )

Which brings me to the document I've been asked to write.


"Web 2.0 and Library Services for Young Adults: An Introduction for librarians"
On my last day in Zagreb, Dr. Ivanka Stricevic, Chair of the IFLA Literacy and Reading Section asked if I could write at least 22-pages on how librarians can use social media in serving Young Adults. Written in English, for translation into Croatian first.

My initial gut-reaction was "Noooooo!"

There are professionals out there who are more qualified that me to write this sort of thing.

But I asked for more information on what was required.

Ivanka explained:

• By now, librarians would have heard of things like Blogs, Wikis, and services like Facebook and YouTube. But they might not have the time (or maybe confidence, even) to try those services for themselves.
• I was involved in drafting the IFLA Guidelines for Services to Young Adults, so having me write this was a natural extension to that. And the guidelines did not cover Social Media in-depth.
• Plus, I'm a librarian an a new media user and practitioner.
• I'd have plenty of time to write something on the flight back to Singapore.
  

After some internal struggle, I said OK (wow, how could I argue against those reasons?)

Then I asked, "When do you need it?"

She told me.

I went, "Whaaat?"

Two weeks.

To come up with 22-pages, at least.

Anyway I've a deferment for SCL News, thanks to the Chair in my own IFLA Section, Ingrid (the newsletter was due the same time as this new assignment).


OUTLINE
This was what I drafted while waiting at the airport:

"Chapters" to be included:
- Facebook
- Images (flickr etc)
- Music
- Podcasts
- Twitter
- Video
- Wiki
- Second Life
- MySpace
- Ning
- Chat
- Google Docs
(some chapters need may be lumped together)

Keep language simple, concise. Document meant to be translated to other languages.

Approach it from an introductory level. Less of "What is it". A little of "How to use it". Enough to let readers know "Why use it" and "What to look out for if I do it".

For practitioners. Examples on "how it can be applied" for Teens services.

Writing it was harder than I anticipated (so what's new?!)

Plus my tendency to procrastinate (I mean, I was letting my subconscious work out some things first... ahem).

But once I'd completed a chapter, writing went at a faster pace. Mentally tiring though, as it became more mechanical, just putting the facts together.

Plus I have to attend to my day job.

Still, I'm glad I took this up. I'm enjoying the writing and research.


A "Web 2.0" example to end this post
Yesterday, within an hour of this response, I took up Isaak's offer to help. Chatted with him in Gmail (he's moved to Australia but we can continue to collaborate efficiently, thanks to Web 2.0)

He agreed to draft the chapters on "Chat and Video-conferencing tools".

Then I spotted Preetam online as well. He blogs, among other things, instructional posts on using Web 2.0 tools. I asked if he had any posts on using Google Documents. He didn't but after I explained why I needed it, he agreed to help with that part.

I told them how they'd be appropriately acknowledged in the IFLA document, as co-contributors (I know they'd still help me even if I didn't mention it but I like to clarify such things at the onset).

Both guys sent me their drafts today (Preetam did it via Google Docs!)

Minutes ago, I sent Isaak my edited draft via Google Docs (in case he wants to add stuff).

This morning, I also "met" Ivy online. She was kind enough to comment on my drafts. Said she can evaluate it from the "techno-newbie" view point. She gave the green-light overall it, so I've greater confidence that I'm in the right direction.

Gotta love Web 2.0 (though in truth, it's really the personal networking and friendship that's key to making Web 2.0 work).


Two more days!
Am giving myself two more days to finish up all the text, tidy up the citations. Plus screen shots.

I'd like to share the drafts via this blog, or a wiki. Might be worth the time to do it, but we'll see.

My priority now is get everything written down as close to the final version as possible (still old-school thinking? lol)


[To be continued: Part 2 - wiki created!]

Bridging Worlds 2008 Conference, Part 6: Sidsel Bech-Peterson - The Mashup Library

[From Part 5]

Sidsel Bech-Peterson, from The Main Library, Aarhus, Denmark.


Sidsel spoke about Aarhus Public Library's efforts in mashing up digital and physical spaces, and people.

People?

Yeah, I heard her right.

They have conceived the term "mash-up"to be about "Co-creation", and user involvement in service prototyping.

Sidsel showed several videos. Check them out:

• StorySurfer
• Transformation Lab - Prototyping the Future
• I-Land

I was impressed with this service called the "Info-Column" (see Transformation Lab video at the 4:10 min mark), where item information can be bluetoothed to the patron's mobile device.


Another cool idea --an "User Suggestion" website (like Dell's Idea Storm)-- where library users can submit suggestions, comment and vote on what others have suggested.


You might think "Oh, nothing special... just a site for users to submit ideas". But it's more complicated than that and I'm sure it took some amount of institutional courage to implement it.

For instance, I can think of these issues to be addressed:

• Would setting up such a site lead to expectations that all ideas have to be implemented?
• How do you handle a point where there's a "diminished returns" of ideas?
• How much time/ opportunity costs are we prepared to spend, in responding to submissions? (because surely most responses deserve some acknowledgment, if not direct feedback)

But those issues are not insurmountable. When planned ahead, they can be managed in several different ways.

Example -- the library can explain what's their "response policy" -- whether you are able to respond to all comments? Or publish some broad guidelines on how the library would evaluate suggestions and choose those for implementation. Maybe even a cut-off for the life of the website, i.e. Migrate it to part of regular customer contact/ feedback process rather than a specific "Idea Storm" website.

Here are some off-the-cuff Twitter posts as I listened to Sidsel:

• 12:08 PM Oct 16th - "impressed with tech tools in danish library presentation. I wonder if the digital tools drive users towards use/ borrowing of physical bk"


• 12:11 PM Oct 16th - "wonder how much the danish library pays in electrical bills to power all those huge digital screens. CBA? Darn I sound like beancounter!"


• 12:19 PM Oct 16th - "sidsel bech-peterson: focus on relations, more than transactions (uncanny - I wrote the same thing in my paper. Wow"


• 12:27 PM Oct 16th - "@shifted - glad there r libraries like aarhus to show the rest of us abt possibilities being implemented."

Admittedly I have some doubts how much these technological devices would directly make users use library materials.

But upon hindsight, I guess I need to un-learn.

Traditional performance measures for libraries have to change. And librarians have to try to convince the powers-that-be why they should be changed.

As I mentioned in my response to Jenny's twitter, I'm glad there are libraries like Aarhus who play the advocacy role in transforming libraries.

And more important, by putting ideas to practice, they allow us to imagine and visualise possibilities.

[Next: Part 7]

IFLA 2008 (part 13): More Web 2.0 in IFLA

[From Part 12]

At my first IFLA conference in Oslo, it seemed to me terms like blogs, wiki, Web 2.0 wasn't in IFLA's lexicon. But year by year, those terms appeared more in presentations and poster sessions.

This year seems like a bumper crop of sorts.

Here's what I spotted at this year's poster sessions:









This one cautions against jumping into Web 2.0:


Of course, there are plenty of posters that aren't about new media.

And for some things, Web 2.0 just can't replace.


Next: Part 14
.

CC Singapore License Draft in Public Discussion

Received an alert from the Creative Commons Singapore Facebook group, which led me to this:

On behalf of CC Singapore, we are pleased to announce that the draft of CC BY-NC-SA adapted to Singaporean law (PDF) is now in public discussion. The CC Singapore team, lead by Anil Samtani and Giorgos Cheliotis and hosted at the Centre for Asia Pacific Technology Law & Policy (CAPTEL), has been working with Creative Commons International to port the licenses to local copyright legislation. A launch event to celebrate Singapore’s completed licensing suite is scheduled in for July 27th.

Why Creative Commons?
About a year back, Bernard blogged his three reasons why he feels Singapore should consider the Creative Commons (incidentally, the topic came up at this talk):

1. Encourages More Innovation and Creativity:
2. It's a win-win situation with the establishment
3. Moving towards a Web 2.0 mindset

I agree with Bernard's analysis. Though I'd say the main reason is really the first one. The other two are its supporting arguments.

I first learned about Creative Commons (CC) right about the time when I experimented with blogs (i.e. about four years ago, amidst the proliferation of community collaboration and sharing through the Web 2.0 movement).

The concept blew me away, really. A paradigm shift in what copyright was about.


What is Creative Commons?
My understanding of CC is this:

• It's not about losing your copyright, but reinforcing it
• Traditional copyright works where permission is presumed not given, and has to be sought from the owner
• CC is merely stating the terms of use upfront. You don't give away your rights but merely give permission first, along with the terms of use

It's so simple, but yet it requires a change in mindset that it's mind boggling at first. At least it was for me.

There are several videos that explains what Creative Commons is about and how it works.


What Creative Commons isn't
Of course one fact CC cannot do is ensure that people credit your work.

CC merely makes it clearer -- in uncomplicated terminologies -- how others can, and should, use your work.

The onus of compliance is still on the receiver and not you, the person providing the content.

But when you think about it, neither can current copyright law ensure compliance by people who download your work from the Internet.

And because the traditional notion of copyright is that permission must be sought, it isn't as efficient as CC.


Peace of mind for people interested in sharing
CC probably wouldn't give you peace of mind if you're the person who constantly worry about people "stealing" your work that you upload on the Internet. Or not giving you due credit. If you tend to think that way, you're better off not making your work available online in the first place.

For me, I'm already interested in sharing my work online.

Because it's the easiest way to get an audience for my songs (let's be realistic: who's gonna buy this?)

Being able to release my work using CC terminology gives me peace of mind.

It doesn't make my rights any more enforceable than it already is.

But I think it increases the chances for my work to be used and credited in the right way.

But has it?


Does CC encourage innovation and creativity?
It's a definitive YES, as far as I'm concerned.

I can personally attest to it.

It's happened to me.

Here's one example -- I shared this song and released it under this particular CC license. Someone came along and added his vocals to it, and he was free to release it as a new work.

Does it benefit me?

For sure, 'cos not do I feel flattered that someone has deemed my work good enough for them to spend time on it, I'm also listening to my work in a new light and gaining ideas from it.


Attribution is a learned behaviour
I mentioned at this post how I've not received any emails or trackback links for all the hundreds of downloads recorded.

But in fairness, merely downloading it doesn't require people to email me, least of all "crediting" me.

Perhaps out of the 100 downloads (125 now, as of this post) someone has used that song in a school project but didn't attribute the work to me.

Or maybe someone ripped me off by selling my work as their own.

Well, I tell people sharing one's work on the Internet is like investing in the stock market: You put up what you can afford to lose.

Besides, I think the habit of attributing, or even just simple courtesy emails, takes time to inculcate.

As the CC movement gains momentum, I'm hopeful that parents, teachers (and librarians!) will ingrain the habit into young people.


Digital Literacy
To me, the adoption of Creative Commons ultimately promotes Digital Literacy.

My own definition of Digital Literacy includes 'Content Production', where every individual is potentially a producer, in addition to being a consumer of content (this is wider than some current definitions of Digital Literacy, like this this one).

By today's standards, everyone's a content-producer. If you've taken a photo or video via your handphone, then you're one.

Whether your works are commercially viable is besides the point.

Copyright and IP rights are something everyone need to know.

Because everyone is a potential content producer, if they aren't already.

It's obvious to me that raising awareness about Creative Commons is raising awareness about IP and Copyright.

[update: see "What does it mean by "porting Creative Commons to Singapore"?"]

Encyclopaedia Britannica goes "Wiki", but not quite

Practically every blog post I've read says Britannica (yes, the Encyclopaedia Britannica, i.e. EB) is going "wiki".

Although in Britannica's blog post dated 3 June 2008 (yeah, they have a blog too!) they have not used that term anywhere.

My reading of their post is that Britannica Online will remain as it is -- an online website. Embedded with "Web 2.0" tool, perhaps.

But not a "wiki" per se, IF we take the term to be closely associated with Wikipedia's publication model.

Their preferred terms are "participation" and "collaboration".

Quotes from their post (emphasis mine):

Encyclopaedia Britannica is about to launch a new initiative that we’re very enthusiastic about. The main thrust of this initiative is to promote greater participation by both our expert contributors and readers.

Both groups will be invited to play a larger role in expanding, improving, and maintaining the information we publish on the Web under the Encyclopaedia Britannica name as well as in sharing content they create with other Britannica visitors.

A complete redesign, editing tools, and incentive programs will give expert contributors and users the means to take part in the further improvement of Encyclopaedia Britannica and in the creation and publication of their own work.

Notice how EB has reinforced their position that credit is given to contributors and participants, and that it will be the user's "own work".

Definitely in the spirit of Web 2.0, where user participation is welcome and practically a given.

My question at this point: Wikipedia doesn't charge a fee for its use, whereas EB has a pricing model. So how would they handle this without being seen as being exploitative?

EB probably anticipates this point and mentions about incentives, but stops short of specifying what it will be, other than implying the non-financial aspects of collaborative work:

"... we will provide our contributors with a reward system ... that will enable them to promote themselves, their work, and their services; allow them to showcase and publish their various works-in-progress in front of the Britannica audience; and help them find and interact with colleagues around the world."

Here's more:

"Readers and users will also be invited into an online community where they can work and publish at Britannica’s site under their own names.

Interested users will be able to prepare articles, essays, and multimedia presentations on subjects in which they’re interested. Britannica will help them with research and publishing tools and by allowing them to easily use text and non-text material from Encyclopaedia Britannica in their work.

We will publish the final products on our site for the benefit of all readers, with all due attribution and credit to the people who created them. The authors will have the option of collaborating with others on their work, but each author will retain control of his or her own work."

Seems to me EB is deliberately shifting the focus away from saying they will pay contributors, but appealing to other factors like establishing contributors as recognised experts, and access to EB's resources.

It seems that not everyone will get to be contributors to EB. Ultimately, EB will decide who gets to contribute, or at least those who eventually gets published under the EB branding:

"As part of our longstanding tradition, engaging a prominent community of scholars will continue to be a key requirement. With this new site and initiatives we will be able to recruit new members beyond our current contributor base, through recommendations from existing contributors, applications from expert communities, and by inviting select members of our user community."

If you follow their post, you'll get to the part where they mention the distinguishing factors from "other projects of online collaboration":

(1) the active involvement of the expert contributors with whom we already have relationships
(2) the fact that all contributions to Encyclopaedia Britannica’s core content will continue to be checked and vetted by our expert editorial staff before they’re published.

So, it's clear to me the new Britannica website will not be another Wikipedia.

It confirms what I've mentioned at the start of this post: Britannica Online essentially remains as an online resource rather than a collaborative platform per se.

They intend to deploy "Web 2.0" tools, which may involve "wiki" features. But they won't adopt Wikipedia's publication model.

This much is also clarified at this comment, where EB clarifies:

"Though a number of people see this as an effort to compete with Wikipedia, in many ways it’s the opposite of the wiki model in that everyone gets personal credit for his or her own contributions, and you control the future of the work you publish on the site."

My final thoughts:
I look forward to EB's new site. But I don't see it as being radically different from what it's doing.

Of course, EB didn't claim that they will be radically different. They emphasise on how there will be greater participation and collaboration (i.e. from their current model).

I'm not doubting their intents. From a business point of view, I'd say "about time"!

As a student or amateur researcher, I'd welcome it too (retaining exclusivity into the "EB club" is a form of incentive).

But all that being said, I'm not sure is how EB intends to implement the "participation" and "collaboration" part. I went to their Beta site and first impression was that it's still very "EB online" and not "Web 2.0".


If "participation" and "collaboration" was the emphasis, then EB needs to make that apparent on the front page.

I'd put a big "Join as a EB contributor" link. And explain more how it works.

I didn't go beyond the main page, so I can only speculate that there are essentially two main "spaces" -- (1) the actual EB website,and (2) the collaborative space for researchers and users to interact. Whatever comes out of Space #2 is filtered back to #1 by the EB staff.

The other thing I'd do is to send out invites to people -- students, academics, bloggers, professionals, teachers, librarians! -- who might want to take part in the Beta. These are your potential users, if not contributors.

EB is a business, and needs a viable business model. So any remarks about it not going the "Wikiepdia Way" is unfair and unrealistic.

But inevitably, EB does have to constantly deal with the fact that it's a reference resource, and there are plenty of alternatives on the Internet whose quality is improving all the time (we librarians should know!)

So I think EB's new site holds some promise.

But seems to me it's not an issue about it's adoption of "Web 2.0" tools, but how well it can integrate the "Web 2.0 Culture" into its business model.

Part 3: "Refute VueStar Patent Claims Website" - Official clarification from IPOS

[From Part 2]

This is a significant development concerning the Vuestar Patent Claim issue.

Read this.

Turned out someone by the nickname of "Upset Singaporean" wrote to his Member of Parliament (MP) about the Vuestar Claim. The MP, Dr. Ong Seh Hong, subsequently directed the enquiry to the Intellectual Property Office Singapore (IPOS). Which then lead to the IPOS Director-General, Ms Liew Woon Yin, responding with this reply.

"Upset Singapore" wrote that he/ she specifically sought permission from the IPOS Director-General to share the response at RefuteVueStarPatent.

When I read the post yesterday, I was elated.

Because not only did the IPOS response clarified alot of murkiness about the Patent Claim, it also raised doubts as to the validity of Vuestar's Claim.

Specifically, items 2, 4 and 6 from the IPOS reply (emphasis are my own):

2. According to IPOS’ records, the patent for “Method of locating web-pages by utilising visual images” (Singapore Patent No. 95940) stands in the name of Langford, Ronald, N. The patent was granted in Singapore, albeit not to VueStar...

4. As Singapore Patent No. 95940 was not granted to VueStar, the relationship between VueStar and the patentee would first have to be ascertained before the question of whether VueStar can actually demand payment arises. The basis on which VueStar is making their demand and their interest in the patent certainly requires examination.

6. Under the Patents Act and Rules, the validity of a patent may be challenged by way of defence in proceedings for patent infringements. There are also other relevant provisions...

At the same time, my librarian's training must have kicked in, 'cos I posed this question to Alice: "How do we know "Upset Singaporean" really obtained permission from IPOS?"

Alice had considered this point already. She decided to use Upset Singaporean's comment in good faith.

I suggested to her that she could do better. Just ask IPOS direct!

Which Alice did immediately. She emailed IPOS. And she received a call from IPOS the very next day confirming that everything was as stated.

The clarification from IPOS doesn't change the fact that companies who have received invoices from Vuestar must still go though due process to resolve the matter.

But in my opinion, the words from IPOS really tips the balance in favour of those being invoiced by Vuestar.

Yet another example that information is power.

[Update: FAQ compiled at RefuteVuestarPatent.biz, 8 Jun 08]

Part 2: "Refute VueStar Patent Claims Website" - Why you might want to care

[From Part 1]

I asked some people (online) if they knew about the Vuestar Patent issue, and whether they felt it applied to them. These friends and contacts are generally IT-savvy people. A few of them own their websites.

I was mildly surprised to learn that most responses typically went along these lines:

• "Yes, I've heard about the Vuestar patent case, but I don't think it applies to me" (note: have you actually read Vuestar's patent claims?)
  
• "So sad that a Singaporean is doing this" (note: Vuestar is a company that chose to register in Singapore. That doesn't make it Singaporean)
  
• "Oh, wait, you mean if I'm a website owner and I enable links via images, I have to pay them a license?" (that seems to be the case)
  
• "Is it possible for them to sue every owner?" (Does it matter?)
  
• "OMG, this is a worldwide license?" (It's a worldwide patent - My error. See this comment. I've also verified that patents apply to only to an individual country. No such thing as "worldwide patent". There is a "Patent Cooperation Treaty" of which Singapore is a signatory, but it doesn't make a patent registered in Singapore applicable outside of Singapore.)

In my view, Vuestar has done nothing illegal. The legal ramifications of Vuestar's patent claims is something to be settled through due legal process.

So why am I concerned about the case when I don't run a website of my own (Vs. using a blogging service)?

Well I'm interested in whether the collective insights by knowledgeable individuals (bloggers and non-bloggers) would make a difference to the issue.

For most Singaporeans who've read the related newspaper articles or blog posts about this case, they'd assume only "IT people" will be affected.

But what if you're a student who runs a website using the so-called "technology to link to images" and you're suddenly faced with an invoice asking you to pay for the license?

Close down the site or blog?

Pay up?

Settle in court?

Whatever the choice, I believe in being prepared. To resolve some of the information-murkiness surrounding this whole affair.

Of course there's the saying that "a little knowledge is a dangerous thing".

In this case, I think the issue for many of us is really the lack of specific knowledge, i.e. Intellectual Property and Patent laws.

The conundrum that I have is that I'm not that well informed about IP and Patent laws either.

I can only suggest that before we dismiss this Vuestar Patents issue as something that "doesn't apply to me", let's think about it further.

What are the implications for yourself, or for the website owners whom you reply on to obtain your news and information?

Or if you're a website owner, find out as much about the issues involved. See if Alice's efforts at RefuteVueStarPatent can help. Or contribute to what she's trying to do.

Surely, being informed through credible sources is a first line of defense.

[Part 3 - Official clarification from IPOS]

Part 1: Singaporean starts a "Refute VueStar Patent Claims Website"

I learned about the VueStar Patent Claim controversy today.

From ZDnet Asia:

Long story short, Singapore-based Vuestar Technologies has hit the town with a stern message that any company that uses photos and graphics to link to other Web sites or Web pages, must obtain a "license of use" from Vuestar. It has begun sending out notification letters to selected companies, urging them to sign a licensing agreement in order to continue using image linking, legally.

VueStar -- www.vuestar.biz -- a Singapore-registered company (not Singaporean per se) has asked companies and individuals to pay up in order to use its technology for ‘locating Web pages by utilising visual images’.


As I understand it, VueStar is not bringing people to court. Yet.

They are telling individuals to pay them.

Because Vuestar holds the patent to what it says is the technology whereby websites "use visual images to hyperlink to parts of the worldwide web":


Meaning, if you access a webpage by clicking on any of the images in this blog, you're using their technology. Since Google owns Blogger.com, then VueStar has a case against Google.

Or so it seems.

My instant gut-reaction was that VueStar is using the threat of law, not the actual law itself, to scare individuals into compliance.



But my post isn't only about Vuestar's claims.

It's about a Singaporean who decided create a website for the purpose of refuting VueStar patent claims, aptly named "Refute VueStar Patent".


It's poetic that a Singaporean has initiated this against a Singapore-registered company.

Initially her site was named "SueVueStar.biz" but I suggested to her that "Refute VueStar" might be a better term. Less acrimonious.


Alice explains why she set up the site, here.

Clearly, it's active citizenry in action.

Alice also tells me the matter is quite complicated. What she's found out is that it's hard to challenge a valid patent. The onus is also on the defendent to prove that there's no infringement (there are some legal precedents which I don't understand fully, so I won't attempt to cite it here).

She adds that in VueStar's case, there are 39 claims to the patent. The defendent has to refute all 39 claims.

It seems that patents rights will always be enforced until the patent is invalidated. Or at least till there is an application for re-examination.

Kevin points me to Lawrence Lessig's 1999 article on "The Problem with Patents", and now I can better appreciate why Lessig feels there's a problem. Here's a quote:

On average it takes $1.2 million to challenge the validity of a patent, which means it is often cheaper simply to pay the royalties than to establish that the patent isn't deserved.

That's USD $1.2 million, at 1999 dollars.

I can believe how some companies in the US can make it their business to just file patents and claim payments or damages.

To me, the sad part is that the whole issue is less about Intellectual Property rights, but more about attrition, i.e. whoever cannot afford the legal fees (and loss of time) may choose to pay up rather than go to court.

It reminds me of gangsters extorting money from commoners, who choose to pay "protection fees" rather than fight the gangsters.

I suppose every business has its risks.

And educated bullies.

I feel an impotent rage right now.

But I take comfort in knowing at least one Singaporean is doing what she can to be constructive about it.

[Update: I shared this case with some web developers I know, like Divya. I was interested in how the Singapore web developer community would react. At first, Divya was ambivalent towards it. But after further discussion, she thought it might be prudent to think further about the implications of this case.

I think we need to do that -- discuss and raise awareness. While we cannot directly effect a change in US patent law, the least we can do is to raise awareness among those who might be affected.]


Some related posts:

• Simply Jean: Imaging linking is patented, websites and blogs affected, Advertlets, Nuffnang and Blog2U may have to call it a day, 27 May 2008
• Hong Kiat: You breached our patent by using images as links - says Vuestar, 27 May 2008 (check out the comments in the post)
• Alice Cheong: Analysis of a prior art refuting patent troll VueStar claims, 2 June 2008

Next: Part 2 - "Why you might want to care"

Kankakee Public Library asks "How Wiki should our Wiki be?"

I've mentioned before how the folks at Kankakee Public Library (Chicago, Illinois) have consistently impressed me with their Web 2.0. forays like blogs and podcasts.

And now they (specifically Steve) have plans for a wiki:

Often, our reference and genealogy staff uncover some fascinating tidbit of information, only to have it sent off to the questioner, never to be seen again. I thought this an incredible waste of our talents: hence KanWiki. The question is how wiki should our wiki be. The coward's way would be to try to lock down and control every article, lest some online vandal write something unflattering in an alderman's article.

The main concern is about vandalism to the wiki entries. Read the rest of Steve's thoughts, here.

Steve may already be scouting for a wiki, or in the midst of creating one on their server. For while there may be skepticism about dealing with wiki-vandals effectively, Steve says their library is willing to try.

I left them this comment, citing my experience with the Singapore Social Media Directory.

I'll also add here that instead of worrying about vandalism to the wiki, libraries should assume there WILL be a minority who intends to do just that. And then prepare accordingly.

Perhaps recruit a pool of library volunteers who will help monitor updates to KanWiki. Provide the volunteers with tools and knowledge on how to monitor the wiki (e.g. RSS and/ or email notifications).

All that aside...

What's more important is that before starting any initiative (nevermind Web 2.0. or otherwise), its purpose and "Why" must be clear.

For the proposed KanWiki, it's crystal clear to me.


[Keyphrase: Kankakee Public Library]

Time to revisit the purpose of OPACs

The word OPAC is an acronym for "Online Public Access Catalogue". I say it's a word because it's one of those terms that have fallen into everyday use, and I suspect many people don't really know what it means other than it being a word.

One day, I might find myself telling this to kids: "Boys and girls, in the days before computers, libraries relied on Card Catalogues to search and locate individual library items."

There's a more comprehensive explanation of their history over at this LISwiki entry.

Anyway I rediscovered Kathryn's post on OPACS and User Privacy. I was drawn to these two images in particular:

Kathryn wrote she'd like to see them in OPACs.

So would I.

I think it's about time we do, and libraries had better do it quick. Especially with all this talk about Library 2.0. and New Media, Social Software etc. Let's put the money where our mouth is.

I mean, here's a tool/ service that almost every library user would make use of, at one point or other. And librarians have always compared ourselves with Amazon.com and we envy at the interactivity that goes on there.

But some librarians feel that an OPAC should remain as an OPAC. It's a tool meant for locating library items, and we should not turn it into some other animal.

I say that may be true in the 1990s, where all this social networking stuff hasn't caught on yet. So now it's time we librarians review the purpose of an OPAC, and what it means to the whole library business.

At it's core, the OPAC should still fulfill it's basic purpose of locating library items. So long we keep that focused, there shouldn't be a danger of it becoming something it;s not supposed to be. Then we build augmented services (that users would find meaningful) around that core service.

Of course changing the OPAC systems wouldn't be easy, but if librarians and libraries are commitment to do so, then it would be done.

In the past, an OPAC was just a computerised version of the card catalogue. And nothing more. Today, it can -- and should -- be more than that. Not simply because librarians want it to. But because more and more of our users find social networking meaningful. And Public Libraries serve a social function.

Tips on developing Web 2.0 applications

Preetam shares his insights on Web 2.0 development in Asia, in this interview at Singapore Entrepreneurs.

Here are extracts of the post, which I found quite insightful (it's of interest to me 'cos it's not that far-fetched for libraries to develop their own Web 2.0 applications):

SGE: ... what are the common features that you see in most successful companies in this industry?
Preetam Rai: Ease of use (e.g. YouTube or Flickr can be used by someone with very little technical expertise); ease of sharing (allowing people to plug the video and images on their blogs etc.)

*

Preetam Rai: ... there is no way South East Asia based sites will get the valuation that the US or Chinese services get as we don’t have the user base. And this is particularly true of Singapore. Given that constraint, I think we can develop smaller fun applications - I see some food recommendation sites. I think there is nothing wrong in being a small service as long as you are useful to the community here.

The other thing is to develop services for global/regional audience. I think Singapore has some advantages in building education and travel related services. I like the idea of travel community site Travelfish, a site run by Australians. Singaporeans with so much travel experience should be able to do such content+community site.

*

SGE: If a young entrepreneur wants to venture into this space, what are the three important lessons that you need him to know?
Preetam Rai:

• Be close to the end-user community - try to hang out as much as possible with your target audience.
• Attend low key tech events in India/ China/ Philippines - the best place to network with individual developers or small companies who might be able to take on your development/user experience work.
• Don’t give up if you see someone else developing a product in the same space as you. More competition means there is someone else who thinks that the idea is worth doing.

Preetam also points out a few social networking sites that he likes. Full interview here.

Scrapblog just blew my mind!

Hat-tip to my author friend, Shel Israel, on what Techcrunch.com calls "the real scrapblog". But Shel (who also consults for Scrapblog) says the service hasn't gone 'live' (as of this post).


Check out their Preview site instead.

Uh, what's Scrapblog again?

Shel says it's a "cool online multimedia tools that lets you use what you are doing with Flickr, YouTube and on your desktop in ways that are entirely new".

OK... getting there...

Techcrunch.com says:

"Scrapblogs are Flash-based slide shows made up of pages of photo or video layouts you can jazz up with a myriad of designs and effects. Transitions can be added between each page and you can set the mood with some background music as your show plays. You can publish a Scrapblog publicly or by invite only and embed it as well. If you choose, viewers can leave Flickr like embedded comments on key spots of the show."

Ah, tell you what -- check out the video tour by Scrapblog. I dare you to say you're not impressed by the idea!

Obviously I've not tried Scrapblog yet. But the video gives me a very good idea what it can do. I've invented a term for a service like Scrapblog -- a "Online Editing Publishing Synthesizer Service" (OEPSS).

It's an editing and publishing platform (like a blog, with comments features). And it integrates on existing social media services for photos and videos, like Flickr and Youtube. It's like a step-up from Vox.com (which is a blog service that provides a good integration with photo & video services like Flickr and Youtube). But Scrapblog goes one step ahead by allowing the user to edit the content online, very much like creating a movie or powerpoint slides.

It's use is independent of computer OS or software (excluding the web browser). All you need is the minimum computer hardware, a compliant web browser and broadband connectivity (of course when the Internet goes down, that turns into a disadvantage, but that's a different issue).

I'm definitely a lot more excited about Scrapblog than Twitter, maybe 'cos I'm a RightBrained kind of guy. I'd expect Scrapblog to be every bit as good as the tour says it is.

P.S. I see this as the next wave of "Web 2.0." development. Services like Flickr, Youtube, and blogs have become widespread and "normalised". Next stage of developments would be services that integrates such standalone services. We won't see a convergence as such, 'cos not everyone will need such services to be integrated. Instead we'll see more of such "Synthesization" (call it "Synergy" if you will). On the business side of things, we can expect such services being bought over by powerhouses like Google and Yahoo!