Month: December 2021

Library 2.0 represents a model of change in library services (Kwanya et al., 2009, p. 74). In the video, Laura Cole talked about the use of technology to transform libraries from physical to virtual. That brings changes on the role of libraries and librarians, library services and information accessibility. Below are the four key points that can be applied to academic libraries to help them embracing a Library 2.0 ethos.

1. Library is an information liberator/cultivator

For hundreds of years, library was traditionally regarded as a keeper of information, a storehouse of printed collection. Users came to library in person to browse the book stacks and borrow the books. However, Technological advances bring even more changes for libraries, libraries have begun using technology to improve the quality of the services (Joe, 2021, p. 1757-1758). For example, the use of online catalogue and electronic resources including online databases, e-books collections and open access journal facilitate users to search and access the information they need. Besides, the use of online institutional repositories provides another channel for users to search and access scholarly publications of the universities.

2. Librarian role: from custodian to navigator

The role of the librarian is shifting from the passive custodian of books to the more active navigator of digital literacy (Cole, 2016). With the advent of social media or video conferencing apps, information literacy sessions can take place digitally. In order to reach out the patron population in digital spaces, librarians need to be familiar with some technologies related to library such as metadata, database search systems, and social networking (Joe, 2021, p. 1759).

3. Patron is the destination for information

Digital libraries allow users to access information regardless of time or geographic location. It is convenient for users who cannot physically present at the library such as part-time students, distant learners, and people with special education needs to access information through the digital libraries (Williams, 2018). It also serves as a “third social-hub space” to provide social and emotional connection for users, to promote library’s services, resources and training events in order to keep abreast of the user needs and to enhance their presence in digital space (Williams, 2018).

4. Change is essential

Change is challenging to cope with, but it is essential for libraries to exploring the full potential of digital technologies to enhance library services. Academic libraries should realize that they needed to change to continue to stay current and relevant (Joe, 2021, p. 1758). Library professionals need to keep updating their skills and expertise to cope with new challenges.

Reference

Cole, L. (2016, April 15). The re-imagined public library: Where will it find you? [Video]. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PnYDl66YfQ0

Joe, J. A. (2021). Modernizing the academic library. In M. Khosrow-Pour D.B.A. (Eds.), Encyclopedia of information science and technology (5th ed.) (pp. 1757-1766). IGI Global. https://doi-org.ezproxy.csu.edu.au/10.4018/978-1-7998-3479-3.ch121

Kwanya, T, Stilwell, C, & Underwood, P. G. (2009). Library 2.0: Revolution or evolution? South African Journal of Libraries and Information Science, 75(1), 70–75. https://doi.org/10.7553/75-1-1275

Williams, M. L. (2020). The adoption of Web 2.0 technologies in academic libraries: A comparative exploration. Journal of Librarianship and Information Science, 52(1), 137–149. https://doi.org/10.1177/0961000618788725

OLJ Task 2: The influence of technology on society

Over the past two decades, information and communications technology (ICT) and network access have transformed every aspect of our lives. The advent of internet, smartphones and apps has rapidly and dramatically changed the way that we communicate and interact with each another as individuals, with businesses and civic institutions like governments. Many components of our interaction have shifted from face-to-face to online spaces where we can interconnect with others, interact with organizations, and undertake commercial transactions. All these changes bring both positive and negative impact to the society and organisations.

In terms of positive impact, it is undeniable that technology helps improve people’s access to information (Warf, 2018, p. xxix). For example, library users can search for information via electronic databases and online catalogue. It also helps make governments more transparent and efficient via electronic government (Warf, 2018, p. xxviii). E-government can be defined as “the use of web-based applications to enhance access to government services and deliver them more efficiently” (Warf, 2018, p. xxviii). E-government can be used for a wide range of government services such as access to census and other public data (Warf, 2018, p. xxviii). Besides, technology allows easier online shopping, electronic banking, and bill payments and provides enormous amounts of entertainment such as viewing movies on Netflix and education via online courses (Warf, 2018, p. xxix).

In terms of negative impact, digital inequality has become a crucial issue. It refers to people’s societal position affects their digital access, skills, types of uses and thus affect their digital engagement (Hargittai, 2021). Many people remain unable to access the Internet regularly because of their lower education level, low income or lack of technological skills that result in unequal access (Warf, 2018, p. xxiii). However, public policies in many places have done little to address the issue of unequal access (Warf, 2018, p. xxiii). Another negative impact is internet censorship which involves government (especially totalitarian) control on Internet access, functionality, and content (Deibert 2009). Warf (2018) argued that many totalitarian governments fear the emancipatory potential of Internet technologies and thus want to regulate Internet access (p. xxviii). That reduces the transparency and efficiency of government.

From my point of view, organisations especially governments have to consider the issue of digital divide. This issue has become more important during the COVID-19 pandemic. Digital divide refers to uneven distribution of the world’s netizens which can be divided by class and education, gender, ethnicity, and age (Warf, 2018, p. xxiv-xxv). For example, the young people are most likely to use the Internet and smartphone and be comfortable with digital technologies while the older adults seldom use the Internet and smartphone because of security issues and technical difficulties (Casanova et. al., 2021). Therefore, government should develop policies to help the elderly develop digital skills that facilitate their engagement in online activities (Leukel et. al., 2021).

 

Reference

Casanova, G., Abbondanza, S., Rolandi, E., Vaccaro, R., Pettinato, L., Colombo, M., & Guaita, A. (2021). New older users’ attitudes toward social networking sites and loneliness: The case of the oldest-old residents in a small Italian city. Social Media + Society. https://doi.org/10.1177/20563051211052905

Deibert, R. (2009). The geopolitics of Internet control: Censorship, sovereignty, and cyberspace. In H. Andrew and P. Chadwick (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of internet politics (pp. 212–226). London: Routledge.

Hargittai, E. (Ed.). (2021). Handbook of digital inequality. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing. doi: https://doi.org/10.4337/9781788116572

Leukel, J., Schehl, B., Sugumaran, V. (2021). Digital inequality among older adults: Explaining differences in the breadth of Internet use. Information, Communication & Society. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2021.1942951

Warf, B. (Ed.). (2018). The sage encyclopedia of the internet. SAGE Publications. https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/csuau/detail.action?docID=5434980

 

Journal Article Analysis on “Fact-Checking the Crisis: COVID-19, Infodemics, and the Platformization of Truth”

The study aims to explore how three major social media platforms (Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube) responded to the COVID-19 mis/disinformation during early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic (from March 2020 until November 2020) via emergent fact-checking policies and practices. It was conducted by thematic analysis of 312 official documents published by the three platforms that address fact-checking and focus on COVID-19. Besides, a retrospective case study was conducted to examine how the three platforms applied the fact-checking policies and practices to the viral video, Plandemic.

There are two main findings from the study. Firstly, the three platforms rely on a combination of human and algorithmic actors to support fact-checking on their sites. However, it is not clear how the algorithmic systems are built to support fact-checking. Algorithmic moderation is always rife with errors as it is difficult for artificial intelligence (AI) to identify problematic content in opinion pieces which require making complex judgments about facts (Stewart, 2021).

Secondly, the three platforms wanted to regulate the visibility of facts and falsities according to their vague and subjective risk assessments made internally. Facebook and Twitter remove or add warning labels to posts if there is a potential for harm. Facebook demote the distribution of content or videos that could misinform users in harmful ways. However, it is not always clear how the platforms decided which content to demote, remove or add warning labels. All three platforms elevate authoritative voices from public health experts such as CDC or WHO on their sites.

In the case study of the viral video Plandemic, YouTube and Facebook removed the video from their sites based on subjective judgement that it could lead to “imminent harm” (Andrews, 2020). Twitter did not remove the video’s link but directed users who clicked on it to a warning message indicating that the content was “potentially spammy or unsafe” (Robertson, 2020). The authors argued that their judgement to the video is highly subjective since “harm” has an ambiguous definition.

Overall, I agree with the argument that the fact-checking policies and practices that the three platforms use to regulate the visibility of mis/disinformation are vague and subjective. Although these policies and practices can help to stop the spread of mis/disinformation, more complicated problems arise when content are partially true or partially misleading. Identification of mis/disinformation is incredibly challenging now and will heighten the tension between free expression and content moderation, and thus generate user distrust toward the platform’s fact checking efforts (Stewart, 2021, p. 923). Therefore, it is essential that the three platforms must strike a balance between free expression of ideas and limiting the visibility of mis/disinformation.

Reference

Andrews, T. M. (2020, May 7). Facebook and other companies are removing viral “Plandemic” conspiracy video. The Washington Post. https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2020/05/07/plandemic-youtube-facebook-vimeo-remove/

Cotter, K., DeCook, J. R., & Kanthawala, S. (2022). Fact-checking the crisis: COVID-19, infodemics, and the platformization of truth. Social Media + Society. https://doi.org/10.1177/20563051211069048

Robertson, A. (2020, August 18). Facebook blocks users from linking to new Plandemic hoax video. The Verge. https://www.theverge.com/2020/8/18/21374081/plandemic-indoctornation-conspiracy-video-facebook-misinformation

Stewart, E. (2021). Detecting fake news: Two problems for content moderation. Philosophy & Technology, 34, 923–940. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13347-021-00442-x