I will present a paper on “Moving From Personal to Organisational Use of the Social Web” at the Online Information 2010 conference tomorrow as well as, as described previously, via a pre-recorded video at the Scholarly Communication Landscape: Opportunities and Challenges symposium.
The eight page paper will be included in the conference proceedings and can also be purchased for a sum of £135! However my paper is available (for free!) from the University of Bath Opus Repository. In addition, in order to both enhance access routes to the paper (and the ideas it contains) and to explore the potential of a Web 2.0 repository service, the document has also been uploaded to the Scribd service.
From the University of Bath repository users can access various formats of the paper and a static and persistent URI is provided for the resource. But what does Scribd provide?
Some answers to this question can be seen from the screen shot shown below. Two facilities which I’d like to mention are the ability to can:
- Let others know about papers being read in Scribd using the Readcast option which will send a notification to services such as Twitter and Facebook.
- Embed the content in third party Web pages.
In addition the Scribd URI seems likely to be persistent: http://www.scribd.com/doc/43280157/Moving-From-Personal-to-Organisational-Use-of-the-Social-Web
I had not expected the WordPress.com service to allow Scribd documents to be embedded but, as can be seen below, this is possible.
There are problems with Scribd, however. It’s list of categories for uploaded resources is somewhat idiosyncratic (e.g. Comics, Letters to our leaders, Brochures/Catalogs). There is also a lot of content from UKOLN, my host organisation, which has been uploaded without our approval. But in terms of the functionality and ways in which the content can be reused in other environments it has some appeal. If only these benefits could be integrated with the more managed environment for content and metadata provided by institutional repositories. But should that be provided by institutional repositories embedded Web 2.0 style functionality or, alternatively, by Web 2.0 repositories services adding on additional management capabilities?