Week 1: Authority

What I have noticed during this first week’s reading is a little bit of what has been on my mind regarding authority and social software in general.

The topic was raised by a number of authors in this weeks reading and I am interested in pursuing it further. ( I will have to admit that I was only able to read a couple of articles and glance at the rest, so there may indeed be an article for this week that thoroughly examines the issue of authority.)

The issue with authority and Library 2.0 (and Web 2.0) has been on my mind for a while. I guess I should just “get off my high horse” as Rogers and Blyberg both assert in their articles for this week.  But is it really just about feeling superior and wanting to impose, traditional, old school ways on the new Library 2.0? Or is it more about what the consequences of giving up control over existing information structures means?

When people are given opportunities to collaborate, edit and reorganize information for their own uses, is there not the possibility that things may go haywire and misinformation may abound? Or is that the purpose of this new technology ­­-- to let things go in whatever direction they may. 

I am reminded of a talk from a guest speaker that came to a class of mine in the fall who talked about a new initiative in a public library in southern Ontario (can’t remember which one!).  The library was creating social software to be directly connected to the OPAC.  The idea was that patrons could give their own input through tagging and other virtual interaction through the new software. The OPAC would be “complemented” by community input.

This, of course, is really innovative and a clear indication that this library is keeping up with the real possibilities of social software. The issue that came up with this new interactive OPAC was that only a tiny fraction of patrons were actually contributing to it.  If I remember correctly, it had only been up and running for about 6 months, but the library had clearly been marketing and advertising this new initiative.  The very few patrons that were contributing were saturating the tags and directing the software according to their interests and motivations.  So maybe the idea will take off on a larger basis in the near future, or maybe it won’t. There was no indication from the guest speaker as to why so few people were participating.  If this is what people want (they have assumed), then why aren’t more people using it?

So, in this example, I would have to agree that an OPAC that is fluid to allow community interaction is a really interesting idea and certainly a way to keep the library relevant and current. BUT, I also think that this specific case demonstrates that the direction that this new software takes is only dependent on who is contributing to it. 

So if I choose not to participate in the collaborative environment, where will I be left? If the OPAC is transformed into a user-driven system, where are those people (like me) who choose not to participate left? How will a balance be found between keeping authority in our existing information structures and embracing patron participation and collaboration in the public library?