Awareness of Using Library Web 2.0 Services Among
Malaysian Youth
Mohd Ismail
Abidin
Universiti
Teknologi MARA, Malaysia
e-mail: mohdismail@bdrmelaka.uitm.edu.my
Kiran, K.
Universiti
Malaya, Malaysia
Mohd Ab Malek
bin Md Shah
Universiti
Teknologi MARA, Malaysia
Abstract
This paper is aimed at exploring the overall landscape of the
use of library Web 2.0 services by Malaysian youths in public libraries. The
main focus of this study is to explore the level of Web 2.0 awareness and usage
of library web 2.0 services among Malaysian youths. This study incorporates web
analysis and user survey. A total of 533 respondents from Malaysia have
participated in this study, specifically users of the 14 Malaysian public
libraries. The results indicate that most of the respondent are using Web 2.0
services in their daily life, however, they do not use this services provided
by the public libraries, although all 14 public libraries have adopted at least
two or more Web 2.0 services; especially
social networking sites. In fact, the adoption of Web 2.0 services is at an initial
stage of its development and thus, most
of the Malaysian libraries are in the process of enhancing its progress for the
betterment of the services. Conversely, the study also found that there are no
definite policies on the adoption of these services; as well as there is a lack
of monitoring of the activities both on the part of the librarians and users. Some suggestions have
been made throughout in this paper for the purpose of increasing the awareness
and effectiveness in the delivery of Web 2.0 services. In addition, the public
library should be more creative and proactive in developing this services in
order to improve the quality of their services in line with the needs of
today's users. It is hoped that this study will holistically increase the
awareness and use of Web 2.0 services
among Malaysian youths.
Keywords: Public Libraries, Web 2.0,
Library 2.0, Social Media, Youths
Introduction
The application of various Web 2.0 services; inter alia Facebook and
YouTube have become a phenomenon among ICT users, especially among Malaysian
youths. Indeed, Web 2.0 technologies are widely applied by each segments
of society universally for various purposes; inter alia, broadening their
relationships, expanding their networking, catalyzing their means of
communication and others. In fact, recent statistics show that the number of
Facebook users has soared to 983, 833.120, while users in Malaysia Malaysia Malaysia
Figure 1: User age distribution on
Facebook in Malaysian Sources: Socialbakers.com. (2013)
Although the data and
statistic show that Malaysia
This study incorporates 3
main objectives, firstly to identify to what extent Web 2.0 services have been adopted
by Malaysian public libraries, to what extent these services have been utilized
and also to see gauge the awareness among users (especially youths) about this
services.
To achieve the objectives
above, this study answers the following research questions:
·
What types of Web 2.0 services have been adopted by Malaysian public
libraries?
·
What are the purposes are these libraries using Web 2.0 technologies?
·
What is the level of awareness among library users of Web 2.0 services
in public libraries and to what extent they use it?
·
How do library users perceive the use of Web 2.0 services in public
libraries?
LITERATURE REVIEW
The use of Web 2.0 among the world society
has become a phenomena; especially generation Y and Z. In fact, most youths nowadays
access to this applications (Socialbakers.com, 2013). According to Oberhelman
(2007), “Web 2.0 refers generally to web tools that, rather than serve as a
forum for authorities to impart information to a passive, receptive audience,
actually invite site visitors to comment, collaborate, and edit information,
creating a more distributed form of authority in which the boundaries between
site creator and visitor are blurred”. Meanwhile in the library setting, Web
2.0 is mainly known or considered as Library 2.0 and was first defined by
Michael Casey in 2005. Library 2.0 is different from the previous Library 1.0,
as it consists of four element features; being user-centred, involves multimedia,
is socially rich, and communally innovative (Mannes, 2006). Similarly Xu, Ouyang and Chu
(2009) stated that Library 2.0 should be open to all, interactive, convergent
to accommodate various Web 2.0 tools, collaborative with others and also
participatory in Web 2.0 movements. Along with the development of Web 2.0
services or Library 2.0 services, libraries have also keep pace of this
services to initiate major changes in the delivery of online information.
According to Curran, Murray and Christian
(2007), libraries which use Web 2.0 services contribute to provide better
services to their clients and have vast opportunities to gain more customers.
In fact, through this service, users would be able to view online, borrow
locally, request from afar and buy or sell as appropriate to their
situation. In addition, user can also
interact with the librarians more easily as stated by Shin (2010). According to Dwyer (2007), SNS are used
regularly by millions of people and it seems that social networking will be an
enduring part of everyday life. In Malaysia Malaysia Malaysia , very scarce research on the use of Web
2.0 services in Malaysia
Methodology
A combination of Web analysis and user
survey has been used in this study. Web analysis is applied as a sample for 14
Malaysian public libraries. This is followed by a survey of library users. A total
of 533 respondents (youths) from Malaysia
RESULT AND
DISCUSSION
The existence of the Web 2.0 services in
Malaysian public libraries identified
through the Library website or the official portal of the public library. Only
the main public library in each state was selected. Web 2.0 icons on the
library homepage were also tested as to whether it had active links to Web 2.0
library services. (See Table 1)
Table 1: List of Malaysian
State
State
|
Library Name
|
URL Adress
|
Perpustakaan Negara
National Library of
|
|
|
Johor (PPAJ)
|
Perbadanan Perpustakaan Awam Johor
|
|
Kedah (PPAK)
|
Perbadanan Perpustakaan Awam Kedah
|
|
Kelantan (PPAKB)
|
Perbadanan Perpustakaan Awam Kelantan
|
|
Melaka (PPAM)
|
Perbadanan Perpustakaan Awam Melaka
|
|
Negeri Sembilan (PPANS)
|
Perbadanan Perpustakaan Awam Negeri Sembilan
|
|
Pahang (PPAPH)
|
Perbadanan Perpustakaan Awam Pahang
|
|
Perak (PPANPK)
|
Perbadanan Perpustakaan Awam Negeri
Perak
|
|
Perlis (PPANP)
|
Perbadanan Perpustakaan Awam Negeri
Perlis
|
|
Pulau Pinang (PPAPP)
|
Perbadanan Perpustakaan Awam Pulau Pinang
|
|
Perpustakaan Negeri
|
||
Pustaka Negeri
|
||
Selangor (PPAS)
|
Perbadanan Perpustakaan Awam Selangor
|
|
Terengganu (PPATG)
|
Perbadanan Perpustakaan Awam Terengganu
|
Web 2.0 services adopted by Malaysian public
libraries
Public libraries in Malaysia Penang and Public library of Negeri
Sembilan. The lowest web 2.0 adoptions are Public Library of Kedah and Public Library
of Pahang which only adopt Facebook. Table
2 also show that most of the Malaysian public libraries are using these
services to provide information on library activities, announcements and any
matters related to the library (33%). In addition, the main purpose of these
services is also to share a collection of photos between libraries and users
(19%). Twelve libraries have adopted this service through a social network site
(Facebook) and 7 libraries adopt it using a photo sharing (Flickr). Furthermore,
18% of libraries use Web 2.0 tools to share general information related to
public library or other matters which are informative for the users.
Table 2: The adoption and purpose of Web 2.0 use among Malaysian Public
Library
Public Library
|
Web 2.0 Services
|
Purpose use
|
PNM
|
Wikis,
RSS, WebBlog, Youtube, Facebook, Flicker
|
Provide General News, Library News & Event, New
books/ journal, Library announcement and Sharing Photo
|
PPAPP
|
Blog,
Instant Messaging, Youtube, Facebook, Flicker
|
General News, Library News & Event, Advice and
Reference services, Library announcement, Sharing Photo and Resources
Guidance
|
PPANS
|
Wikis,
RSS, Youtube, Facebook,
|
General News, Library News & Event, Advice and
Reference services,Sharing Photo
|
PPAS
|
RSS,
Blog, Youtube, Facebook
|
General News, Library News & Event, and Sharing Photo
|
PPAKB
|
Wikis,
RSS, Facebook
|
General News, Library News & Event, Advice and
Reference services,Sharing Photo
|
PPANPK
|
RSS,
Youtube, Facebook
|
General News, Library News & Event, and Sharing Photo
|
PNSK
|
RSS,
Youtube, Facebook
|
General News, Library News & Event, Book review &
Discussion and Sharing Photo
|
PPAJ
|
RSS,
Facebook
|
Provide General
News, Library News & Event, and Sharing Photo
|
PPAM
|
Youtube,
Facebook
|
Library News & Event, and Sharing Photo
|
PPANP
|
Blog,
Facebook
|
General News, Library News & Event, Library
announcement and Sharing Photo
|
PNSB
|
RSS,
Flicker
|
Library News & Event and Sharing Photo
|
PPATG
|
RSS,
Facebook
|
General News, Library News & Event, Library
orientation
|
PPAK
|
Facebook
|
Provide General News,
Library News & Event, and Sharing Photo
|
PPAPH
|
Facebook
|
Library News & Event, Advice and Reference
services,Sharing Photo
|
Demographic profiles of respondent
A total number of 533 respondents who use these services were given
the questionnaire. Table 3 depicts
the demographic details and pattern of use of the study respondents.The table shows; in terms of gender, there
are 215 respondents (40%) have participated in this study whereas for female,
the total number is 318 or 60 %. The findings indicate that the age range of
the respondents in this study is from 12 to 15 (246 or 54 %) whereas the total
respondents from 16 to 18 are 211 (46%).
Table 3 : Respondents
Profile
|
||||||||
Gender
|
Age
|
Use Of Internet
|
Place Of Surfing Internet
|
|||||
Frequency
|
Frequency
|
Frequency
|
Frequency
|
|||||
Male
|
215 (40%)
|
12-15Years
|
246 (54%)
|
Yes, Always
|
172 (38%)
|
Home
|
337 (37%)
|
|
Female
|
318 (60%)
|
16-18 years
|
211 (46%)
|
Yes, Sometimes
|
273 (59%)
|
CyberCafe
|
241 (26%)
|
|
No, Never
|
15 (5%)
|
School
|
148 (16%)
|
|||||
Library
|
88 (10%)
|
|||||||
Restaurant
|
100 (11%)
|
|||||||
It is clear that most of the
respondents sometimes spend their time for that purpose; that is 273 or 59 %.
Besides that, there are 172 or 38 % of the respondents claimed that they often
use the internet. Meanwhile, only 15 or 5% of the respondents said that they
never use the internet. For the place of use, it can be observed that majority
of the respondents spend their time in using internet at home (337 or 37%);
followed by at cybercafé with 241 (26%). On the other hand, there are 148 respondents
who use internet at school (16%), 110 respondents at restaurants (11%); as well
as 88 respondents spend their time using the internet at a library.
Awareness and use of Web
2.0 services among youths
i) Awareness of Web 2.0 services provided by Malaysian public libraries
Table 4 shows the frequency of
respondents’ awareness about the existence of Web 2.0 services provided by
Malaysian public libraries. The result indicates that 52% respondents are not
aware of this services whereas 48% are vice versa.
Table 4. : Awareness of existence Web 2.0 provided by Malaysian public
libraries
|
||||||||||
PPAKB
|
PPAKT
|
PPASB
|
PPANPK
|
PPAM
|
PPASK
|
PNM
|
PPAJ
|
Total
|
||
Yes
|
57
|
54
|
25
|
31
|
24
|
10
|
10
|
20
|
231 (48%)
|
|
No
|
43
|
55
|
37
|
68
|
47
|
4
|
11
|
30
|
295 (52%)
|
|
ii) The
awareness of the sources which offer Web 2.0 tool services
The awareness of the sources
which offer Web 2.0 tool services by Malaysian public libraries is shown in Table 5. The result shows that many
respondents know about the existence of these services through their friends
(26%). On the other hand, 18 % indicates that they know about Web 2.0 services
is from library website or library portal. It is followed by library banner
/poster and also from their teacher (12%).The result also shows that the
respondents know the existence of these services through libraries bulletin and
libraries events/activities (11%). Meanwhile, the lowest (10 %) respondents
indicate that they know about these services through library orientation
day/session.
Table 5: Frequency of awareness of the sources which offer Web 2.0
services.
|
||||||||||
Kelantan
|
Terengganu
|
Perak
|
Melaka
|
Johor
|
Total
|
|||||
Library Website
|
61
|
19
|
24
|
22
|
8
|
8
|
6
|
3
|
148 (18%)
|
|
Banner/Poster
|
35
|
12
|
12
|
22
|
10
|
3
|
2
|
11
|
96 (12%)
|
|
Friends
|
40
|
43
|
23
|
54
|
48
|
0
|
7
|
16
|
215 (26%)
|
|
Library Orientation
|
69
|
5
|
3
|
5
|
1
|
0
|
1
|
2
|
84 (10%)
|
|
Library Bulletin
|
36
|
14
|
6
|
19
|
9
|
2
|
6
|
5
|
92 (11%)
|
|
Library events/activities
|
8
|
27
|
22
|
22
|
6
|
5
|
5
|
11
|
95 (11%)
|
|
Teacher
|
2
|
36
|
5
|
29
|
21
|
1
|
7
|
14
|
101 (12%)
|
|
iii) The use of Web 2.0 application
Table 6 shows the frequency of the
use of Web 2.0 application among youths is divided into 7 categories. The
result shows that the highest application used by youth is social networking
sites like Facebook, MySpace, Twitter and others which indicates 79%. It is
followed by vodcast/podcast like YouTube, Metacafe, blib.TV and so on (51%).
The third highest of Web 2.0 application used among youth is Instant Messaging
(IM) (50%). It is also indicated that even IM is the third highest application
used by youth; it also showed that 50 % of the youth who have not or never used
this application. Apart from that, the fourth highest is blog whereby 38 % or
172 youth use the application. On the other hand, Wikipedia is used by 159 or
37 % of youth respondents. As for the community photo like a Flickr, Picasa,
Smug Mug, Zaar and others, only 122 or 31% of respondents use these
applications. Meanwhile, the lowest application used by the respondent in this
research is RSS which is 23%.
Table 6 : Frequency of Use of Web 2.0
|
||||||||
Instant Messaging
|
RSS
|
Blog
|
Wikis
|
Community Photo
|
Vodcast/ Podcast
|
Social Networking Site (SNS)
|
||
Yes
|
224 (50%)
|
100 (23%)
|
172 (38%)
|
159 (37%)
|
122 (31%)
|
331 (51%)
|
409 (79%)
|
|
No
|
225 (50%)
|
341 (77%)
|
268 (62%)
|
266 (63%)
|
319 (69%)
|
113 (49%)
|
112 (21%)
|
|
iv) The use of libraries’ Web 2.0 services
Table 7 shows the frequency of the
use of Web 2.0 services provided by Malaysian public libraries among youths.
The result shows that the highest library Web 2.0 services used by respondents
are also Social Networking Sites (SNS) or libraries Facebook. In this
situation, only 65 or 12% of respondents use or ever use Malaysian public
libraries Facebook. This is followed by library RSS services (7%). Meanwhile,
for the vodcast/podcast such as YouTube, the total number of respondents use or
ever use this services is 331 respondents but only 28 or 5% respondents use or
ever use these libraries YouTube channel. Apart from that, the result shows
that RSS, Blog, Wikipedia and Community photo services provided by Malaysian
public libraries have never been used or never been visited by the respondents.
Table 7 : Frequency of Use of libraries Web 2.0 services
|
||||||||
Instant Messaging
|
RSS
|
Blog
|
Wikis
|
Community Photo
|
Vodcast/ Podcast
|
Social Networking Site (SNS)
|
||
Yes
|
0 (0%)
|
36 (7%)
|
0 (0%)
|
5 (1%)
|
4 (1%)
|
28 (5%)
|
65 (12%)
|
|
No
|
533 (100%)
|
497 (93%)
|
533 (100%
|
528 (99%)
|
529 (99%)
|
505 (95%)
|
468 (82%)
|
|
v) Purpose of the use of libraries’ Facebook
Figure 2 below indicates the
frequency of the purpose of youths using a particular public library’s
Facebook.
Figure 2: Purpose of the use of libraries
Facebook
Each respondent was asked to evaluate the frequency of all 6 activities
listed in the questionnaire. It is indicated that the respondents use public
library’s Facebook “Very Frequently” to share photo/s (25 respondents) and to
access the library’s services and resources (20 respondents). Next, there are
20 respondents who use the public library’s Facebook has given the comments of “Frequently”.
Furthermore, there are 19 respondents who answered for “Neutral” for the
purpose of searching for book review and book discussions.
vi) Respondents’ perception on
libraries’ Facebook
Table 8 shows that there are different
perceptions towards the role of Facebook among youths. Based on the findings,
the first two largest numbers of respondents decided that they are “Strongly
Agree” that Facebook help them to keep in touch with their family, teachers and
friends (213 respondents) and they prefer to use Facebook compared to other
modes like emails or phone calls as a medium of communication among their
family, teachers, friends and library (134 respondents). It is followed by
“Neutral” perception regarding Facebook as a fast medium for students to search
for information (121 respondents), Library help students in seeking information
through library’s Facebook (116 respondents) and overall, the teenager gain a
lot of academic benefits through Facebook (112 respondents). Next, 111 respondents has chosen “Strongly
Agree” regarding to Facebook as a good medium for students to have a discussion
with their family, teachers, friends and library. Similarly, students also use
Facebook as a medium to share knowledge and the library posts current news
about state government program, activities and events through Facebook received
“Neutral” perception by the respondents where both criteria has been agreed by
106 respondents. Lastly, youths gain a lot of social benefits through Facebook
and using Facebook keep in touch with the library (105 respondents) who vote for
“Strongly Agree” and 101 respondents who vote for “Neutral” respectively
Table 8 : Respondent perception on libraries Facebook
|
||||||
1 (Strongly
Disagree)
|
2 (Disagree)
|
3 (Neutral)
|
4 ( Agree)
|
5 (Strongly Agree)
|
||
Using Facebook keep me in touch with
my family, teacher and friends
|
52 (13%)
|
22 (6%)
|
43 (11%)
|
56 (15%)
|
213 (55%)
|
|
Using Facebook keep me in touch with
library
|
89 (23%)
|
76 (20%)
|
101 (26%)
|
48 (13%)
|
68 (18%
|
|
I would prefer to use Facebook
compared to other modes (emails, phone calls) as a communication medium among
my family, teacher, friends and
library
|
39 (10%)
|
52 (13%)
|
96 (24%)
|
75 (19%)
|
134 (34%)
|
|
Facebook are good medium for student
to do discussion among their family, teachers, friends and library
|
38 (10%)
|
54 (13%)
|
98 (24%)
|
102 (25%)
|
111 (28%)
|
|
Facebook is fast medium for student
to do information seeking
|
50 (13%)
|
45 (12%)
|
121 (31%)
|
76 (19%)
|
99 (25%)
|
|
Library helps student in seeking
information through library Facebook
|
53 (14%)
|
71 (19%)
|
116 (30%)
|
77 (20%)
|
67 (17%)
|
|
Facebook is a good medium for student
to share knowledge
|
28 (7%)
|
60 (16%)
|
106 (27%)
|
93 (24%)
|
100 (27%)
|
|
Library post current news about state
government program, activities and events
|
43 (11%)
|
66 (17%)
|
106 (27%)
|
88 (23%)
|
85 (22%)
|
|
In summary, I am benefitting a lot in
socialize through Facebook
|
34 (27%)
|
52 (13%)
|
97 (25%)
|
104 (26%)
|
105 (27%)
|
|
In summary, I am benefitting a lot
academically through Facebook
|
46 (12%)
|
60 (16%)
|
112 (29%)
|
79 (20%
|
89 (23%)
|
|
vii) Reasons of Non-Usage Services among Youths
Respondents were asked to give evaluation on 5 different reasons given
in the questionnaire regarding to why they do not use the services provided in
a particular library. Based on the result, it is indicated that the major
reason is that they are not aware of the services available in the library. On
the other hand, the respondents agreed that the second major reason for not
using Blog (96 or 31% respondents), RSS (90 or 29% respondents), Flickr (84 or
26% respondents), Instant Messaging (83 or 26% respondents) and Wikis (77 or 25
% respondents) is because there is no need for them to use the services.
Moreover, for YouTube (66 or 23% respondents) and Facebook (68 or 24% respondents);
this is due to the fact that the restriction of the use of the services in the library.
(See Figure 3)
Figure 3: Reasons of Non-Usage Services among Youths
Next, for the third major reason for youths for not using YouTube (57 or
20% respondents), Facebook (55 or 19% respondents), Wikis (41 or 13%
respondents), Flickr (39 or 9% respondents) and RSS (31 or 9% respondents) is
because of there are not enough computer facilities in the library that can
enable the youths to use the services, while the other third major reason for
RSS (31 or 10% respondents) is because of the restriction of the use of the
services in the library which is similar to Instant Messaging (41 or 13%
respondents). Apart from that, for Blog (37 or 12% respondents), youths have to
take some times to be familiar with the technology. Moreover, the fourth major
reason for youths for not using Facebook (39 or 13% respondents), Instant
Messaging (30 or 9% respondents), Flickr (30 or 9% respondents), Wikis (27 or
9% respondents), and RSS (27 or 9% respondents) is because they are not familiar
with the technology. Besides that, for both YouTube (37 or 13% respondents) and
Blog (32 or 10% respondents), there is no need to use YouTube; as well as there
is a restriction to use blogs in the library. Lastly, youths do not use YouTube
(33 or 11% respondents), Blog (30 or 12% respondents) and Instant Messaging (29
or 9% respondents) is because they have taken some time to get familiar with
the technology. Meanwhile, for Flickr (27 or 8% respondents) and Wikis (26
respondents or 8%), the reason is because of the restriction of the use of the
services in the library. Besides that, for Facebook (28 or 10% respondents), the
reason is that there is no need for the youths to use it.
FINDINGS SUMMARY
Although currently Web 2.0 services
are widely accepted and used by society today for the purpose of
communication or exchange of information and knowledge, it is undeniably true
that the public library usage is among the lowest in Malaysia. As a result of
the investigation of the 14 public library web sites in Malaysia, it is
revealed that the average library has only one or two Web 2.0 services and they
are still in their basic development stage and not consistently being updated.
The most popular services used are Facebook, RSS and Youtube. On the other
hand, based on the user survey, the findings show that most of the respondents
have used Web 2.0 tools such as Facebook, Youtube, blog, and other tools.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Based on the data analysis and its interpretation, the researcher would
like to propose several recommendations for the Malaysian public libraries in
order to improve their Web 2.0 services, inter alia;
i) Development of Web 2.0 Guidelines and Policy
Most of the public libaries in this study do not have a standard or a basic
guideline and policy of the development of the Web 2.0 services. In relation to
this, in oder to develop a new service or applying a new online services such
as Facebook, Youtube, Flicker, and others, libraries should have or at least make
a reference to the existing guidelines and policies of the Web 2.0 adoption
used by other organizations or government agencies. It is important because the
libraries need to know what are the advantages and disadvantages of providing
Web 2.0 services guidelines and policy. Then, they must decide on the specific
activities or specific services which have been planned to be introduced. The
issues of security and confidentiality of the data and information also need to
be taken into a great consideration by the libraries. In fact, libraries need
to know the service providers’ (Facebook, Youtube, Flicker, Twitter and other
tools) policy about disclosing library information and data. It is highly
recommended that public llibraries should develop a standard or at least basic
guidlines and policy before implementing Web 2.0 services as their external
services to the users. Existing Web 2.0 guidelines and policy; namely (1) Information Services Guidelines for Using
External Web 2.0 Services, (See Appendix) available at https://www.wiki.ed.ac.uk/display/Web2wiki/Web+2.0+Guidelines,
(2) Garis Panduan Tatacara Pemilihan Kandungan Media Sosial, MAMPU, (See
Appendix) available at
http://www.mampu.gov.my/web/guest/garis-panduan, (3) Internet
Use and Web 2.0 guidelines available at www.plc.nsw.edu.au/.../Internet_Use_Web_2.0_Guidelines_Policy , could be
used as basis for this decision making.
ii) Web 2.0 Training and Profesional
Development for Staff
Librarians nowdays are the users
of Web 2.0 services such as Facebook,
Youtube, Yahoo Messengers, Blog and others. However, there are only a few of
them who know on how to use each and evey Web 2.0 functions such as RSS, Blog,
Facebook for the benefits of the users accordingly. In this study, it was found
that most of the librarians who get involved in the development of Web 2.0
developed this services on their own initiative without attending any formal
training. From the observation of the library Web 2.0 services, it was found
that they did not consistently update the content and interface of their Web
2.0 services. Therefore, support and
training are necessary for the purpose of implementating Web 2.0 services. Thus,
in order to equip and improve a better understanding of the use of Web 2.0 tools, they should pursue to
professional trainings, courses, or workshops with regards to the use of Web
2.0 to increase their understanding; as well as in technical and technology
skills. It is believed that from attending Web 2.0 professional trainings or
courses, it can significantly improve development of the staff, skills and motivation
which would eventually lead to the direct
benefits for library services. The examples of training or workshsop related to
Web 2.0 are Future Web
Workshop conducted by Universiti Malaysia Sarawak (UNIMAS) and Web 2.0 for
Libraries, organized by the University of Malaya Library.
iii) Regular Promotions for Enhancing Users’
Awareness
People need information quickly and effectively.
Therefore, the use of Web 2.0 services could facilitate library users to get
various information required more rapidly, more reliable and has an up-to-date
approach. Consequently, librarians should keep monitoring, updating and providing
information required by the users as efficiently as possible. Any delay in distributing
information through Web 2.0 services may result that the users are no longer interested
to use it in the future. For example, by using Facebook or microblogging apps
like Twitter, librarians can directly disseminate information related to library
materials, new services or service development. In addition, libraries need to
take the advantages of Web 2.0 services as a mechanism to build relationship and
communicate with the users which would eventually improve their awareness of
the existence of Web 2.0 services provided by library. Through this services,
it is very easy, quick and cost-effective for the libary to inform thier current
service and activities as a marketing and promotional strategy. It is
recommended for the library to offer regular promotions about Web 2.0 sevices
not only in the library portal itself but also trough library orientation day,
knowledge sharing sessions, library events and activities and so on. This would
ensure that the users could increase their knowledge and become interested to
use this services in future.
iv) Upgrading the Technology
Infrastructure
Public library users are not like the
academic library users. Public library users consist of all walks of life and
indeed, not everyone has a computer, especially the youths. Based on the
observation from visiting the public libraries, most of the public libraries do
not provide sufficient computer facilities to the users. Moreover, the ICT
infrastructure also is not capable enough to support the needs for providing
Web 2.0 services. Yet, some of the public libraries do not allow access to the
Web 2.0 tools such as Facebook and Youtube. The reason is; if the user spends
so much time in accessing this services, library network would turn to become slower.
However, if the library blocks such services, the user might be not aware the
existence of library Web 2.0 tools. Hence,
it is highly recommended for the libraries to upgrade their ICT infrastucture
accordingly. It is hoped that through this upgrading, the common problem such
as slow access speed could be resolved which may lead towards the betterment of
users’ benefits in experiencing the usage of Web 2.0 services.
CONCLUSION
In conclusion, libraries should be more proactive and creative in offering a better service
in future; especially for the new service such as Web 2.0 services. The reason
is; the use of Web 2.0 services is one of the most popular trends nowadays;
particularly among youths. With the complete web 2.0 guidelines and policy, regular
promotion and adequate infrastructure as well, surely libraries can strengthen Web
2.0 services to its user.
References
A.R., Riza Ayu and A., Abrizah. (2011).
Do You Facebook? Usage and Services of Facebook
Page among
Academic Libraries in Malaysia
comScore
(2009 comscore). “Online usage in Malaysia
ww..com/Press_Events/Press_Releases/2009/8/Maybank_Leads_as_the_Most_Visited_Local_Site_in_Malaysia.
(accessed on 28 October 2012)
Curran,
K., Murray
2.0. Library Hi Tech, 25 (2), 288-297.
Danyaro
et.al. (2010). An Evaluation of the Usage of Web 2.0 among Tertiary Level
Students in
Dwyer,Catherine,
Hiltz, Starr Roxanne, Passerini,Katia. (2007). Trust and privacy concern within
social
networking sites: a comparison of Facebook and MySpace. Proceedings of the
Thirteenth Americas
Conference on Information Systems, Keystone, Colorado
(accessed on 28 October 2012)
Gosling, Maryanne, Harper, Glenn, and McLean, Michelle.(2009). Public library
2.0 : some
Australian experiences. The
Electronic Library, 27 (5), 846-855
Han,
Zhiping & Liu, YanQuan. (2010). Web 2.0 services in top Chinese university
libraries. Library Hi Tech, 28 (1), 41 – 62
Liu,
S. (2008). Engaging users: The future of academic library websites. College
& Research
Libraries, 69 (1), 6−27.
Hi Tech, 26 (4),
630-653.
http://www.malaysianbroadband.info/malaysia-ranked-no-1-in-social-networking/. (accessed on 28 October
2012)
Maness, J. M. (2006). Library 2.0 theory: Web 2.0 and its implications
for
Librarians. Webology, 3(2). Available at: http://www.webology.ir/2006/v3n2/a25.html?q=link:webology.ir/
(accessed on 28 October 2012)
Mohd Hafiz, Z., Jason, W., & Sylvia, L. E. (2010). Investigating
the use of Web 2.0 technology by
Malaysian students. Multicultural Education &
Technology Journal, 4 (1), 17-29.
Mohd
Ismail, A and Kiran, K (2012). Reaching out to the web user : practices by
Malaysian public
libraries.
ICOLIS 2012, Kuala Lumpur. LISU, FCSIT, 2012, 19-21 November 2012,
Petaling Jaya, Malaysia, pp 251-252
Nesta,
Frederick and Mi, Jia (2011). Library 2.0 or Library III: returning to
leadership. Library
Management, 2 (1/2), 85 - 97
Nguyen,
L. (2008). A survey of the services of Web 2.0 in Australasian university
libraries. Library
Hi Tech, 26 (4), 630-653.
O’Reilly,
T. (2005).What is Web 2.0 design patterns and business models for the next
generation of
software.
Available at: http://oreilly.com/web2/archive/what-is-web-20.html. (accessed on 15 March
2012)
O'Reilly, T. (2007). What is Web 2.0: Design patterns
and business models for the next generation of
software. Communications and
Strategies, 65, 17−37.
Oberhelman, D.D. (2007). “Coming to
terms with Web 2.0”. Reference Reviews,
21 (7), pp. 5-6.
Rafidah
Abdul Aziz, et.al (2011). The implications of library 2.0 tools in Malaysian
academic libraries
towards
reference. Proceedings of the Asia-Pacific Conference On Library &
Information Education & Practice, 22-24 June 2011, Putrajaya, Malaysia,
p.579-588
Serantes
, Lucia Cedeira. (2009). Untangling the relationship between libraries, young
adults and
Web 2.0: The necessity of a critical perspective. Library
Review, 58 (3), 237 – 251
Socialbakers.com. (2013). Malaysia Facebook statistics. Available at : http://www.socialbakers.com/facebook-statistics/malaysia. (accessed on 15 March
2012)
Xu,
C. (2007). The academic library meets Web 2.0: services & implications.
Available at:
http://eprints.rclis.org/12108/1/The_Academic_Library_Meets_Web_2.0_Services%26_Implications.pdf. (accessed on 15 March
2012)
Xu, C., Ouyang, F. and Chu ,
H. (2009). The academic library meets Web 2.0:
services and
implications. Journal of Academic Librarianship,
35 (4), 324-31.
Name (paper presenter):
MOHD ISMAIL BIN ABIDIN
Brief Biodata:
Currently, Mohd
Ismail Abidin is a reference librarian at Information Resource
Center University of Malaya
Correspondence Author’s
Kiran Kaur (Ph.D., University of Malaya), Senior
Lecturer is currently the Head of Department of Library & Information
Science in the Faculty of Computer Science & Information Technology,
University of Malaya. Her research interests include information services,
service quality, quality management, CRM, academic libraries,
social networking, and Library 2.0. Her research publications appear in Malaysian Journal of Library & Information
Science, Electronic Library, Libri, Library Review, Library Management, Collection Building
Mohd Ab Malek bin Md Shah is a law lecturer at Universiti Teknologi
MARA, Malacca City Campus. Having graduated from the International Islamic
University Malaysia
Noted : This paper has successfully presented at ALIEP 2013
