Web 2.0, library 2.0, physician learning 2.0 (Ophthamology article)
This looks like another article that I want to read but don’t have access to.
Ophthalmology. 2007 Oct;114(10):1801-3.
Web 2.0, library 2.0, physician learning 2.0.Liesegang TJ.
PMID: 17908589
(This blog would be a lot better if publishers would just give me free subscriptions- or at least send me copies of articles like this one. I know- it’d be a chilly day in Hades…)
Anyone else read it yet?
Like this post? Subscribe to the RSS feed!
October 10th, 2007 at 7:49 pm
You’re mentioned, of course!!!
Here are some interesting excerpts.
“How will medical libraries adapt? Present library resources (Library 1.0) are defined by title or subject and organized by the publishers; they exist in fragmented silos with librarians as gatekeepers rather than related to user need. This makes much of the content somewhat hidden, like a treasure to be found only with a thoughtful search assisted by a skilled librarian.15 Library 2.0 is a direct and peripheral effect of Web 2.0.9 Miller suggests several principles of Web 2.0, including the freeing and innovative use of data, the building of virtual applications by drawing from the present applications and data, and the participatory role of the user in whatever format the user wants to work or share.16 The focus switches from the content that the library holds to the needs of the end user, who presumably might enhance the data and information. Under this system, Miller emphasizes that trust is needed that all will use the data and content appropriately.15 Library 2.0 is a mashup of wikis, streaming media, blogs, content aggregators, instant messaging, and social networks.”
“In addition to providing their standard services, libraries will adapt to assisting individuals with their expertise and content; become more visible and accessible; share resources with other libraries; and be more relevant providers of information, including expertise in the use of Web 2.0 products.16 If libraries do not have these characteristics, their users will find other more responsive and relevant sources of information, even if the quality of information might be somewhat
inferior.”
The “gatekeeper” description is one I totally understand, and hope librarians are taking action to change. If we aren’t willing to be more responsive and relevant, we’ll discover how true the second excerpt is. T. Scott’s recent post (Means, Not Ends http://tscott.typepad.com/tsp/2007/10/means-not-ends.html) addresses this better than I can.
October 11th, 2007 at 4:05 am
As I’m (french) ophtalmologist interested in Web2.0, I wrote a post on my blog about this interesting paper (http://oph.girmens.fr/2007/10/06/web20-ophthalmology/).
Look in your email…
October 11th, 2007 at 3:12 pm
Let me know if you still need a copy, I can email you a pdf…
October 11th, 2007 at 3:15 pm
Thanks, Chris! I should’ve noted here that I’ve gotten about 7 copies so far. There are clearly a lot of really nice people who read this blog.
Maybe I should give up using Docline and just post on my blog when there’s an article I want?
October 11th, 2007 at 7:39 pm
There is a link to your blog in the article:Lists of medical wikis are available (http://www.davidrothman.net/list-of-medical-wikis).