Intranets and Knowledge Sharing

James Robertson’s paper "Intranets and Knowledge Sharing" deals with the concept of "community practice". In the context of Robertson’s paper, community practice refers to the practice of information sharing within a small group, or "community". The community decides among themselves, consciously or unconsciously the best method to share this knowledge. In Anne Lloyd’s article "No Man (or Woman) is an Island" she describes it as a "collective view of practice and profession". The two components of community practice are firstly, and more importantly, the community interaction that gives a need for information sharing, and secondly, the media used to provide this information and distribute it. It is in the second component that Intranets are involved.

Robertson lists many applications of an Intranet, provision of staff directories, enabling an easier and quicker evaluation of who is involved in which project, and using the Intranet to maintain or increase staff morale. Of course, the structure of such a collaborative space is immensely important. It is not enough to be able to store information, but in accordance with the concept of community practice, the information must be easily shared. A system that falls down on this point is not worth the expense of having implemented. Therefore, the more successful systems will be easy to use, and able to be used quickly.

Intranets can also house a weblog that can be used to publish information to a group. An example of a weblog, to a limited degree, is what you are reading now. Usually written in a more informal style, and easy to update through online forms, a weblog is able to contain easily accessible information for a group. Many organisations have moved into a related item, the "knowledge log" or K-log. These are more formal blogs used solely for archiving and publishing knowledge on a specific project or for a specific group. These vary from many weblogs, which are more personal, (an example is my Livejournal at http:jerichospin.livejournal.com)

Recent years have seen the emergence of the wiki. A major example of the power a wiki can present is the online encyclopedia, wikipedia (http://www.wikipedia.org/ ) Wikis are able to be edited, (information added, removed or edited) by anyone, and thus can make the informations store fairer to those involved by not being able to promote certain information at the expense of other information from another source.

All of these techniques and tools are used through an Intranet setup to enable more effective and fairer sharing of knowledge through the principles of community practice.

Library 2.0

In Jack M Maness’ paper "Library 2.0 Theory: Web 2.0 and Its Implications For Libraries", the concept of Web 2.0 and the newer theory of a Library 2.0 concept are examined. By their very name, these are seen to be upgrades or improvements of both the Web and Library practice, and involve a rethinking of the structure of both the web and web based information accessed by libraries. The paper suggests, that the term "Web 2.0" made popular in 2004 by Tim O'Reilly and Dale Dougherty of O'Reilly Media, refers to those web based technologies that are more user involved, in that the user helps to create and disseminate the information as well as consume it. A perfect example of a Web 2.0 site is Wikipedia, where the users of this online encyclopedia are also able to create entries and edit existing entries. Maness defines Library 2.0 as "a user-centered virtual community" or "a Web manifestation of the library as place".

The main aspect of Library 2.0 theory is the inclusion of users in the process, the sense of an increased amount of communication between not only within the groups of users and from librarian to user but also the reverse, user to librarian. A "family feel" if you will.
Library 2.0’s key elements are therefore a sense of interactivity and increasing the level of authority of the user. For example, Wikipedia’s ability to be edited by all users. Sarah Houghton, on her blog Librarian In Black, defines Library 2.0 by saying

"Library 2.0 simply means making your library’s space (virtual and physical) more interactive, collaborative, and driven by community needs. Examples of where to start include blogs, gaming nights for teens, and collaborative photo sites. The basic drive is to get people back into the library by making the library relevant to what they want and need in their daily lives…to make the library a destination and not an afterthought."

This definition has been claimed by many of the writers of Library 2.0 as a working definition, although there is still many debates on the concept. I prefer the definition by Houghton as it stresses what I see as the primary feature of Library 2.0, those of interactive communication and collaboration of librarians and users, the focus on offering relevant content based on a community’s needs, and the sense Library 2.0 gives of being unlimited in its potential.