RE: Web 2.0 and Scholarly Communication

[<Toby.GREEN@oecd.org>]

Check out www.swivel.com and IBM's beta Many Eyes 
http://services.alphaworks.ibm.com/manyeyes/home - two examples 
where users can post and discuss statistical data via charts and 
graphs. Another experimental tool/site in this field is 
Gapminder.

-----Original Message-----
[mailto:owner-liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu] On Behalf Of Greg Tananbaum
Sent: 14 February, 2007 1:05 AM
To: liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu
Subject: Web 2.0 and Scholarly Communication

As part of a forthcoming two-part column in Against the Grain, I 
have been contemplating Web 2.0 and its effect on scholarly 
communication. I employ the term "Web 2.0" in reference to the 
emerging practices and services that use the Internet as a 
platform for communal participation.  To provide further 
definition, the Web 2.0 movement involves marked socialization 
and collaboration among Internet users. People are sharing 
information, data, content, expertise, and opinions in a way that 
first generation static web sites could not accommodate.

This sharing often takes the form of rapid peer-to-peer 
communication, unvetted by any expert authority.  Britannica 
Online is Web 1.0; Wikipedia is Web 2.0.  The former is a 
top-down site in which information is disseminated from a team of 
experts, to be read by the general public. The latter is a 
grassroots site in which visitors are encouraged to add their own 
expertise to evolving definitions.

In considering how Web 2.0 has spilled into the world of 
scholarly communication, I was struck by how incongruous its 
basic tenets are with many of the fundamental characteristics of 
mainstream scholarly publishing.  Today's scholarly journal 
circulates one person's work into the hands of many people.  The 
one communicates with the many, but true feedback loops through 
which the many can communicate back to the one, and to each 
other, are rare.  Time and financial constraints can partially 
explain this.  However, the fundamental culture of academic 
information dissemination is not been particularly geared for 
this type of freewheeling exchange.  The tweed jacketed professor 
who doles out pearls of wisdom in staid journals is a cliche for 
a reason.

Having said all this, there are obviously a number of terrific 
examples of Web 2.0 services within the world of scholarly 
communication.  The new PLoS One journal 
(http://www.plosone.org), for example, with its light editorial 
touch, emphasis on the quick dissemination of technically sound 
information, and reader rating/commenting layers.  CiteULike 
(http://www.citeulike.org/) is another, by allowing professors to 
tell the world what they are referencing, or, in essence, what is 
on their virtual bookshelves. PictureAustralia 
(http://www.pictureaustralia.org/), the photo-sharing 
collaboration between the National Library of Australia, its 
citizens, and Flickr is another.

What I am wondering is what sites and services list members 
perceive as particularly noteworthy in their "2.0-edness".  What 
do you see out there that is innovative, not just for novelty's 
sake, but in stretching the boundaries of scholarly 
communication?

Greg Tananbaum
gtananbaum@gmail.com
(510) 295-7504
-------------------------------------------
CONSULTING SERVICES AT THE INTERSECTION OF TECHNOLOGY, CONTENT, & ACADEMIA