LIS 9763

     I find it very interesting that the readings this week had a surprisingly narrow focus—on Flickr and YouTube to the exclusion of almost everything else.  YouTube is clearly the juggernaut here, as it’s hard to see how it CAN’T be used for educational purposes.  The obvious benefits of personal instruction on specific tasks are easily applicable in a library setting.  Instead of having to attend a tour or ask a librarian for assistance, patrons can watch tutorials on interacting with library systems.  From there, it’s a small step toward amassing a digital collection of such instructional videos on a wide array of tasks, from gardening and cooking to child-rearing and job-hunting.
     Flickr is a slightly more esoteric resource, and caters to more specialized interests.  However, to those who can’t imagine how it might be used educationally, it provides a considerable and effective method of illustrating a multi-step process (such as do-it-yourself home renovations).   During the completion of my group project for this week, I encountered a surprising number of Flickr streams cataloguing the steps in cooking complex dishes.  As a part-time baker with no intentions to quit his day job, the luxury of being able to see the dish at each stage of its construction is priceless.  Knowing just how brown the crust is supposed to be, or how doughy you want the batter, or what the thing is supposed to look like when you cut into it is a lifesaver.  Even without captions, a good photo recipe can be worth more than its written equivalent.
     But as mentioned above, it’s curious that when we think of media-sharing in an educational context, we limit ourselves to Flickr and YouTube.  Defining what we mean by “media” is hard enough (Do online print sources qualify as “media” in media sharing? Are open-access efforts like Project Gutenberg media sharing? Blogs? Is the only video we’re willing to admit video vetted by YouTube? Which media violates copyright agreements when shared?), but limiting it to photos delivered by Flickr and videos delivered by YouTube is anachronistic.  Part of the appeal of the internet is its decentralized nature—librarians should not spend their time looking for ways to grow dependent YouTube, but attempting to provide an equivalent service oriented toward the values of the library or the community.  As much as we become enamoured and terrified of the idea of distributing and purveying media, we forget that much of what captivates the users of YouTube and Flickr is that they can themselves become the producers of this kind of media.  Local libraries should be encouraging local organizations and charities to create photo streams of community events, and school libraries should be encouraging students to create their own streams as well. School clubs could use blogs to keep students abreast of their activities, which the library could collect and display through a feed or a blogroll.  Community organizations could upload videos of successful events, promotional campaigns, and PSAs.  Local documentaries and press clippings could be collected and provided for download or perusal.  Podcasts from local figures or other important/interesting individuals could be aggregated and indexed. 
    In short, the presence of “shared media” on a library website is irrelevant if the media shared doesn’t appeal to the user base.  As librarians, we need to be ready to engage with the wealth of formats and media available online, and create a discerning selection of these to appeal to our patrons and community.  Moreover, part of our initiative should be to engage the community and user-base to create their own content and share it with the larger collective.  After all, their engagement ensures the continued currency and relevancy of the media available to the community as a whole.