Open versus Free

While I'm waiting to see what people use in their own life or in their library, I will continue with the subject of Open Source Software.

The question that was raised during the "Getting IT online" session of the ARSL conference was "what is the difference between Free and Open".  It is a legitimate question and one many of us do not know the answer to.  Let's start with the basic definitions. 

Most of us are familiar with CLOSED software.  This is software or programs that we use all the time.  Examples of this are Microsoft Word or Microsoft Excel.  These are programs that we use but cannot see the programming for.  We must take these products as is or chose not to use them.  This is also called proprietary software.  The majority of the time, we do have to pay for these programs. 

FREE software is exactly that, free.  It is free proprietary software that we may use but not change.  Examples of this include Twitter, Google Docs, and Meebo. 

OPEN software is free.  It is also software that you can see the back end of it.  this means that if you know how to do programming, often in Python or Perl, you can change or adapt the software to what you want it to be.  You can make a program into what you or your library needs.  Examples of this include Pidgin, Koha, Powerline, and Dim Dim.  (If you don't know what these are, don't worry.  I'll explain them in the next blog). 

A Library Web 2.0 POLL

Just out of curiousity-what Web 2.0 technologies are your libraries (or companies) using?  Are there some you would like to see being used?  Are there some that are being used that really shouldn't be?
For my library, we are using MySpace, and Flickr.  We should be using Facebook or possibly a wiki.  I don't think we should be using the MySpace as that is not where our patrons are at. 

What Web 2.0 really means, part 2

First, I would like to thank those who answered the question "What does Web 2.0 really mean to you". 

It was interesting to see what most people think.  It seems it is an overwhelming answer for interactivity-at least in a textual format.  In speaking to someone in my library recently, she was complaining of her young niece talking about Web 3.0 technologies.  In this rant, CC (names have been altered to protect the innocent) proceeded to state that she hadn't even really learned what 2.0 was and that she was probably at web 1.5 right now.  "When 3.0 comes out in full force, I'll probably be at 2.0.  It seems I'm always two steps behind with these things" said CC.  Knowing CC pretty well, I know for a fact that she has both a MySpace and a Facebook account.  I pointed out to her that these were 2.0 technologies and she lit up because she was 'with' the times. 

This reiterates my belief that the majority of people were using Web 2.0 programs and apps before they were officially titled Web 2.0.  How many of us were on MySpace or Facebook before we knew the term social networking?  Did it really only become 2.0 when businesses, libraries, and other organizations started using these tools too? 

I've heard many 'definitions' for Web 3.0.  Some say it is more interactive than 2.0.  Instead of just using text based things, it will be audio (Skype anyone?) and video based.  It will be 3-D.  I'm not sure the Web or our computers are quite ready for that level yet so I've found numerous articles and sites addressing this already.  One really great series of articles is from "HowStuffWorks".  Now, admittedly the article is from 2008 so its a bit dated but they were already looking at this when we were just learning 2.0 existed.  It's a tad scary for those out there that are not tech friendly.

Strickland, Jonathan. "How Web 3.0 Will Work." 03 March 2008. HowStuffWorks.com. 23 November 2009.
http://computer.howstuffworks.com/web-30.htm

The other article of interest is from PC magazine.  This magazine, understandably, covers a great deal of material concerning Web 3.0.  In an actual series of articles starting with the Introduction to an Idiot's Guide ending with a brief look at versions 4, 5, and 6. 

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2102852,00.asp

Hopefully, these will give you some idea of what is out there and what is to come.  Maybe after you look at these, you might be able to think of what it means for you and for your library. 

Web 2.0-What does it really mean?

This is to be a rather short blog today, especially compared to my first blog posting. I started going through the paperwork and notes from the ARSL conference to get ideas for this blog and for my library when I came across a quote that got me thinking.



During the conference, I attended Sonja Plummer-Morgan's Web 2.0 session. I attended to see how Web 2.0 related to small and rural libraries and how we could use them to our advantage for both the library and the patrons. Within the first few minutes, Sonja made the statement:


"Web 2.0 means nothing. It is nonsense." She clarified by stating everyone has their own definition and made some comments about Web 3.0 and 4.o and how some might not be all the way there so they would label themselves as Web 2.5. It was amusing, to say the least, but it raised the question 'what does web 2.0 mean to you?'



So, tell me: What does Web 2.0 mean to you?

Welcome to the Rural library and Web 2.0

As an individual in my late 20's-early 30's, I could see the glamour and excitement concerning Web 2.0 technologies. They were exciting and new. Everyone wanted to test drive them and see how wonderful they were. There were even library systems and regions using the 43 things (or some libraries cut it down to 21 things) in order to get their staff into the spirit of it. It was great and fine for personal use. Who wouldn't want to find old friends on MySpace or Facebook? Who wouldn't want to store and share their pictures on Flickr? What person wouldn't want to keep track of books owned and read using LibraryThing?

But after the initial excitement, I couldn't help but sit down and say "okay, these things are terrific for me personally. But what's the point of using them for a library?" I started seeing other libraries in my system using Flickr, Facebook, MySpace, Twitter, and blogs. Then I started taking a long look at said libraries. (Let me provide some background to the library system I am a member of-we are a county in Pennsylvania that ranges in urban sprawl to farm country with a little bit of everything in between. There are libraries in the middle of larger towns and ones in smaller towns. The majority of the libraries are small, despite their location, and only a couple can be considered rural.) The libraries using these tools were either large or in larger cities where the population is very technologically saavy. The community is using Facebook, MySpace, Twitter, and more. Thus, it makes sense that the libraries are using these tools to reach the patron where the patron is at. That's what libraries need to do.

But, in a little experiment to reach the teens and tweens-I created a MySpace page to see just how tech saavy my rural part of the county is. Despite advertising in and out of the library, out of over fifty teens in our area, only five friended the library. No one cared. A blog failed as well. Don't get me wrong, we have some really technically saavy individuals out there but most are the kind that got up in arms when the local paper folded and went out of business. They like monthly or quarterly paper newsletters. They are farmers or blue collar workers who just don't have the capability or the time to go online except for the most basic things.

In speaking to other rural and small librarians recently at the 2009 ARSL conference, they shared similar concerns. Why should the rural library care about Web 2.0, or Open Source for that matter? What does it have to offer us? Hopefully, this blog will answer those questions and offer solutions you didn't think of before.