Insert Clever Name Here

And now, a few words on Library 2.0 | November 26, 2009

Thing 17 involves reading some stuff on Library 2.0 and commenting on the whole phenomena.  I think I’ve been exposed to lots of commentary on Library 2.0 through OLA and Library Journal, but it’s always nice to step back and look at the big picture now and again.  Michael Stephens’ column was interesting in that it didn’t just talk about technology, indeed it warns against ‘technolust.’  But most of the precepts he discusses are pretty straightforward – user-centred service, watching trends, transparency, meeting clients where they are, that sort of thing.  I’d say it’s hard to disagree.  I should note that I saw Stephens at OLA once and read his column in LJ.  I’m a little less enamoured with Wendy Schultz’s column (people wanting virtual reality info coach from a librarian avatar?), but maybe I’m just not futuristic enough.  Second Life is another thing I keep hearing about but can’t get excited about the hype.  I do like this line:

But let’s be clear: Library 4.0 will not replace Libraries 1.0 through 3.0; it will absorb them. The library as aesthetic experience will have space for all the library’s incarnations: storage (archives, treasures); data retrieval (networks—reference rooms); and commentary and annotation (salon). Available as physical places in the library “storefront,” they will also be mobile, as AR overlays we can view (via glasses, contacts, projections) anywhere. 

That kind of sums it up for me, except the viewing stuff with glasses and contacts.  Mobile, sure, but WTH?  Anyway, we have lots of clients who come in now, and I don’t get the sense that they’re clamouring for Web 2.0 services.  That said, they’re already clients.  We can’t forget everyone else out there, some of whom still have the stereotype of the library as a stodgy place where you have to follow a bunch of rules and navigate unfamiliar systems to get what you want. 

One final comment.  One of my favourite columnists & bloggers is Dan Gardner of the Ottawa Citizen.  He had a great post on the swine flu last May that talked about the difference between cynicism and skepticism.  Cynics dismiss everything almost automatically (kind of like gullible people, who accept everything almost automatically), while skeptics “…don’t accept things at face value. They demand evidence and examine it carefully. But neither do they automatically dismiss claims without first examining the evidence. They weigh and balance and consider: Only then do they judge.”  This is what I try to do, not always successfully.  It also applies to Library 2.0 – not all of it adds up.  For instance, everyone cites this library in Michigan  (I can’t remember which one) and their catalogue and its thousands of patron-driven book reviews and comments.  That’s excellent, but sometimes it reminds me of people pointing out the guy who became a millionaire after failing to finish high school and saying “hey, if he did it, I can too! ”  It happens, but it’s rare.  As far as I know, this library’s experience is sort of unique – much emulated, but never equaled.  I hope we get a cool catalogue overlay here someday, but sometimes think we’d be better off connecting to some other source of online comments, like Amazon.  I don’t get the sense that our patrons are itching to contribute comments to our catalogue.  Still, this doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t give them the chance.

So far, in my skeptical opinion, Library 2.0 is a good thing…but we need to make sure we look at everything carefully and not with rose-coloured glasses.  Not that we need to paralyse ourselves and end up the last to do everything, or that it’s wrong to try and not succeed.  Be skeptical, but in the good way Dan Gardner talked about.

If you’re one of the two or so people who have read this, I thank your for your patience with my blathering.