Web Preservation in a Web 2.0 Environment

1. http://www.ukoln.ac.uk/web-focus/events/workshops/webmaster-2008/http://www.ukoln.ac.uk/web-focus/events/workshops/webmaster-2008/ Web Preservation in a Web 2.0 Environment About This Talk Will use of Web 2.0 services lead to new preservation concerns? And how should we respond to these new challenges? Brian Kelly UKOLN University of Bath Bath, UK Email B.Kelly@ukoln.ac.uk Resources bookmarked using ‘iwmw2008' tag UKOLN is supported by: This work is licensed under a Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 2.5 licence (but note caveat)

2. Is Web 2.0 Different? Web 2.0 • How does Web site preservation differ for Web 2.0: • Use of 3rd party services • Emphasis on collaboration and communication, rather than access to resources • More complex IPR issues • Richer diversity of services • Let’s look at: • Case study 1 - wikis • Case study 2 – blogs • Case study 3 – reusing data • Case study 4 – comms tools (disposable data) • Case study 5 – recording events

3. Group Exercises Web 2.0 • Speed exercises: • You will be given an example to consider. Give an initial response, in a single sentence (or word) in less than a minute! • Small group exercise: • In small groups chose an example of interest. • Give a more considered response to the preservation challenges

4. Case Study 1: A Public Wiki Web 2.0 • WetPaint wiki used to support various workshops • Approaches taken: • Open access to all prior to & during event (to minimise barriers to creating content) • Access restricted to WetPaint users after event • Access later restricted to event organisers Many aspects of Web site curation are to do with implementing such best practices, rather than implementing technical solutions See JISC PoWR blog post

5. Case Study 1: A Public Wiki Web 2.0 • WetPaint provides an option for backing up data. • A zipped file of the pages can be saved for storing on a locally managed service. • There are limitations in this particular service (poor quality HTML, internal links don’t work, …) • But this does illustrate an approach which can be taken.

6. Case Study 2: Blog Migration Web 2.0 • How might you migrate the contents of a blog (e.g. you’re leaving college)? • This question was raised by Casey Leaver, shortly before leaving Warwick University

7. Case Study 2: Blog Migration Web 2.0 • She migrated her blog from blogs at Warwick Univ to Wordpress Note, though, that not all data was transferred (e.g. title, but not contents) so there’s a need to check transfer mechanisms

8. Case Study 2: Blog Migration Web 2.0 • A backup of UK Web Focus blog is available on Vox: • Manual migration of new posts every few weeks • Only migrates text • Doesn’t migrate images, embedded videos, internal links, comments, … Migration of blogs, wikis, etc. is not currently an easy task  But advice is available

9. Case Study 3: Reusing Data Web 2.0 • Blog post in Facebook. Possible concerns: • It’s not sustainable • You’ve given ownership to Facebook • Response: • The post is managed in WordPress; Fb displays copy (to new audience) • Fb don’t claim ownership – they claim rights to make money (e.g. through ads)

10. Case Study 4: Disposable Data Web 2.0 • Twitter – example of a micro-blogging application • Facebook status messages is another related example • Issues: • Will Twitter be sustain-able over a long period? • What will happen to the data? • What about the IPR for ‘tweets’? • What about institutional uses?

11. Case Study 4: Disposable Data Web 2.0 • Many twitterers regard their tweets as disposal • I tend to use Twitter as a ‘virtual water cooler’ – sharing gossip, jokes and occasional work-related information with (mainly) people I know • You could make use of clients which manage your tweets (e.g. treat like email) • But you should develop your policies first, prior to exploring technologies

12. Case Study 4: Disposable Data Web 2.0 • Skype (or your preferred VoIP application) are growing in popularity • Issues: • Is the digital data (the call) preserved? • What about the video and the IM chats? • Possible Responses: • Am I bovvered? • I didn’t bother with analogue phones, why should I worry now?

13. Case Study 5: Digitized Talks • Seminar on Open Science given at UKOLN in Feb 2008. • Video clip of opening 10 mins taken & uploaded to YouTube • Issues: • Privacy • Quality • Benefits • Long term access • Benefits identified – now how do we seek to deploy recordings of seminars, conferences, etc. on a more systematic basis? • This is work in progress – but see IWMW 2007 videos

14. Case Study 6: Slideshare • What happens to your slides if Slideshare disappears? • My approach: • Master copy held on managed environment • Info on master on title slide and metadata • CC licence & download available – many copies

15. Case Study 7: Social Networks • University of Wales, Newport and University of Bradford have set up Ning networks for supporting their students: • Bradford: Closed (Bradford email address needed to access) • Newport: Open Intended for students about to arrive at institution http://newstudents.newport.ac.uk/ What does preservation mean in this context? Answers to this question will be left as an exercise for the participants 

16. Role Of The Internet Archive Web 2.0 • Can we leave everything to the Internet Archive? • Has role to play in Web 1.0 • Seems to archive some public blogs • May not access images or other embedded content • Still has limitations (cf. UCE/BCU) • Can’t (currently) access Facebook pages, for example

17. Role Of The Internet Archive Web 2.0 • The Open University has a presence in Facebook. • In June 2008: • 7,551 fans • 983 wall posts • 82 discussion topics • Is anyone: • Recording the history? • Curating the data • Managing possible risks?

18. The Research Challenges Web 2.0 • Some thoughts: • Preservation of Web sites in known to be difficult • Additional difficulties in a Web 2.0 world • Complexities include technical challenges and business issues • However: • Is avoiding Web 2.0 a realistic answer? • There may be some simple processes which may help

19. Accessibility & Preservation • The parallels: • We can’t release xxx: it breaks accessibility guidelines; we’ll be sued • The xxx service provides benefits to many – we’ll see what reasonable adjustments are needed to enhance access • Approaches needed: • Clarification of the purpose of the service • Risk assessment of loss of service / record of service / record of look-and-feel • Documented policy

20. Questions