Web 2.0 and Library 2.0 Annotated Bibliography

The articles below I chose for basic knowledge and familiarity with Web 2.0 and Library 2.0., issues with records and information management, Web 2.0 with teens, issues with folksonomies and planning implementation of technology. These are all interests of mine.

Bolan, K., Canada, M., and Cullin, R. (2007). Web, library and teen services 2.0. Young Adult Library Services, 5(2), 40-43.
An explanation of Web 2.0, Library 2.0 and the logical progression to Teen Services 2.0. Teen Services 2.0 is based on listening to teens ideas, wants and needs when designing programming. Additional resources are provided

Curran, K., Murray, M., Norrby, D.S. and Christian, M. (2006). Involving the user through library 2.0. New Review of Information Networking, 12(1/2), 47-59.
An overview of Library 2.0 and Web 2.0 concepts. Defining what makes a website Web 2.0 and how utilizing these concepts will better serve our users.

Dearstyne, B.W. (2007). Blogs, mashups & wikis oh my!. Information Management Journal, 41(4), 24-33.
The article describes Web 2.0 and the challenges it presents for records and information management professionals. Blogs, mashups and wikis are important in allowing for collaboration and pooling of information between people. However, this requires management issues such as who is the custodian of information, how to manage the volume of information, how much to make public and security issues.

Funk, M.E. (2009). Testing the web 2.0 waters. American Libraries, 40(1/2), 48-51.
Recent article guiding librarians unfamiliar with Web 2.0 features to basic useful ones and providing definitions of these features. LinkedIn for networking, social bookmarking, RSS feeds and Flickr are suggested.

Kern, K. and Stephens, M. (2008).Taming technolust: Ten steps for planning in a 2.0 World. Reference & User Services Quarterly, 47(4), 314-317.
Incorporation of technology within the library requires planning, evaluation, experimentation and not overthinking. The authors present ten suggestions on how to implement new technology.

Loertscher, D. (2008). What works with the google generation. Teacher Librarian, 35(4), 42-42.
Information behavior of the Google Generation was studied to find what works to aid teachers and librarians. Recommendations are listed in bullet format.

Secker, J. and Price, G. (2007). Libraries, social software and distance learners: Blog it, tag it, share it!. New Review of Information Networking, 13(1), 39-52.
A paper describing a project to determine how Web 2.0 technology can help distance learners use the library. Literature reviews examining social software and library usage, supporting distance learners and libraries as social spaces were completed. Case studies have begun to study the use of social bookmarking for sharing, social software and online reading lists, blogging in the library community, use of social networking sites and podcasting for information literacy support.

Stephens, M. (2006). Exploring web 2.0 and libraries. Library Technology Reports, 42(4), 8-14.
Early article defining Web 2.0, contrasted with Web 1.0 and explains what that means for the user. The author discusses how libraries can harness the 2.0 technology for their users and the role of the next generation librarian - librarian 2.0. A glossary of selected terms and resources are provided.

Stephens, M. (2007). Technology trends for a 2.0 world. Library Technology Reports, 43(5), 32-44.
Technology trends based on the author’s blog post “Ten Techie Things for Librarians” are explained within the realm of libraries. Suggested applications of these trends within libraries are given for each ten things. An additional resource list is provided.

Stock, W.G. (2007). Folksonomies and science communication: A mash-up of professional science databases and web 2.0 services. Information Services & Use, 27(3), 97-103.
Adoption of folksonomies can complete scientific indexing by allowing scientists to tag documents based on common terms specific to each specialty and/or geography. The author discusses the pros and cons to using folksonomies and still encourages their use coupled with ‘old’ science databases.