Online information 2010_track_two_final_corrected
•Télécharger en tant que PPT, PDF•
1 j'aime•587 vues
Must Libraries Fully Engage with Web 2.0 Without Discernment? The Science Business Case According some professional magazines, Scientists are leader of the Web 2.0 pack. Many online services appeared on the market for a few years and these technologies would reshape the future of research and science communication. But, at the time being, it is not obvious whether Scientists have really embraced these new services on their daily routine, as the adoption seems to be low. The question for science libraries is to know f they have to invest on wikis and other blogs. How can they choose appropriate tools among dozens of web 2.0's applications? Is it so critical to maintain a presence on social networks? Libraries strategy must consider real impact of web 2.0 in their specific environment before to engage their energy and time.
![[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],Medias]()
Recommandé
Recommandé
Contenu connexe
Tendances
Tendances (20)
Similaire à Online information 2010_track_two_final_corrected
Similaire à Online information 2010_track_two_final_corrected (20)
Dernier
Dernier (20)
Online information 2010_track_two_final_corrected
- 1. Is Web 2.0 really adopted by Scientist? H. Basset (FR) – Online Information – London, 2010
- 15. Free services Vs Paid tools
- 22. R1: Choose the right train Students Confirmed scientists USA Europe Public institutions Companies Junior scientists
- 24. Conclusions
- 25. Is Web 2.0 Bad for Science?
- 26. Is Science 2.0 a revolution? ®
- 27. Are Librarians ennemies of Web 2.0? "A library without a librarian is a reading room."– Jenny Garcia of the University of Wyoming
- 28. Who is the expert?
Notes de l'éditeur
- Today, I would like to talk about what people called the Science 2.O
- Scientists have a problem with the web 2.0!! They heard a lot of things in the past years, they read a lot of articles in the medias saying that they…
- And it’s clear that web 2.0 has completely invaded our private environement but as well our professional environnement You’will see in this confused picture some tools or services that you are probably using from time to time or maybe that you know just by name Most of them have appeared on the market in the last 3-4 years Just to say also that some of them have disappeared in the meantime
- There is no doubt that science information is living deep changes, wome would say a revolution, since a few years A kind of acceleration, in terms of volume ands in term of accessibility, and web 2.0 contributes clearly to this success So, at the surface, we could think that Science 2.0 is really a success as these 2.0 tools are a huge success on the private sphere
- Let’s start, and let’s forget big speeches of vendors and magazines Let’s have a look at facts and figures
- I have not enough time to explain all the details but Globally what you can see here is that we are very far from a success Are media telling the truth? FaceBook: (2009) 350 millions ; blogs: Estimated at 126 millions (2009), means 7% of Internet users
- Try to find out how many scientists are active on twitter? A very few, nothing I don’t want to talk about poor experiences in virtual worlds, in wikis, etc.
- Let’s forget the statistics and let’s have a look at different studies: you will find dozens of serious studies talking about that. Globally, all of them are saying that the adoption is very very low or near L et’s f o rget t he s ta t ist i c s and let’s h a v e a loo k at d i ffe r en t st u d ies: y ou wi l l f i nd doz e ns of ser i ou s st u d ies t a lking a b o ut t hat. G lob a ll y , a l l o f t h e m a re say i ng tha t the a d optio n i s very v e ry lo w or ne ar ze ro
- And at last, if you are listening the scientists themselves. It is quite the same thing
- What does that mean? What are the reasons why science 2.O is failing?
- Media tend to over-estimate the real impact of these services on the business
- Just in a few words, because it is not the purpose of my presentation I have the impression that Science 2.0 doesn’t correspond to the science culture that we are living again the famous debate of « « little science » Vs « big science » ; the conflict betwwen journalism and communication and the real science Some would say it is doing science versus talking about science
- Probably also because science culture is rather conservative high impact journals and congress are still the place to be for senior scientists
- We have also to notice that the market is especially confused as I told you before in the first slides Science 2.0 knows probably the best and the worst of the web The best is BioMedExperts for instance, the worst
- Anyway what you have to know or to keep in mind always is that free services are never completely free , at least because of the side costs
- So that means that USING paid tools you save the money of your organization
- You know probably this song of Iggy Pop What I mean
- The information obesity problem is not new, by far Scientists are already completely overloaded by the information, the flow of information and the web 2.0 doesn’t bring intelligent tools to deal with this information I can be wrong but I don’t think that Web 2.0 will solve this big issue, maybe Web 3.0 will
- The second question was what is our position regarding these free tools? Should we engage our services into these tools without any discernement?
- The key is to find the right balance
- If I would have a recommandation, if I may give an advise to someone I would say: be careful before to invest time and money in web 2.O tools The first thing to do is to survey your people, to know where your users are Don’t forget that all these services can disappear as faster as they appeared
- Let’s forget medias and experts and build your own expertise meeting your clients